Thanks so much, Bryan, for your kind and encouraging words and for being part of the "Accelerated Globalists" podcast. It's great to see so many listeners enjoying our conversation. Looking forward to more insightful discussions in the future!
And to everyone reading this, if you like my work, please also consider subscribing to my Substack.
Globalization stops innovation is a straw man. The problem with globalization is that it destabilizes individuals and communities. There may be overall national benefits, but harms a concentrated, as David Autor and others have clearly demonstrated.
If you want to make a real case for globalization, explain what to do for those that globalization impacts badly and in many cases irreprably.
He's made it clear he doesn't care about the negative impacts on the flyover chuds -- he just wants a class of servants like they have in the UAE that will enable him to finally live the aristocratic lifestyle that intellectuals like him deserve. Which, you know, _based_ I guess.
Well, there's a general sense in which the country as a whole benefits more, I think. Of course globalization was good for the world, lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty, but deindustrialization really did a number on the Midwest. And, you know, I'm American.
I just think, look, economists, sociologists, and the rest of them make their nice theories, but looking empirically, the rise of immigration in the USA and Europe seems to have caused more trouble in terms of social unrest than it's worth, not to mention leading to the election of really awful leaders like Trump. Give the blue collar people what they want, close the gates and let the new arrivals assimilate, and we can maybe have more immigration in 50 years. We did this before in the 1920s and had a long period of decrease in inequality up through the 60s. It's like homeostasis.
"Well, there's a general sense in which the country as a whole benefits more, I think."
Yeah economists give you that _sense_ but:
1. The general consensus is that the benefits go mostly to the immigrants themselves (obviously), are slightly positive for the employers and are slightly negative for Americans as a whole.
2. Recent Danish study showing low-skilled immigrants were net drains on government finances no matter what age they came.
3. Consider the a thought experiment (hat tip to Greg Cochran for popularizing it): The U.S. annexes Canada tomorrow, a country with similar demographics, language and culture and about 10 % of our population. The total GDP of the U.S. would go up by about 10% but it's hard to see, other than some minor economies of scale, how the per-capita GDP would increase. Now imagine the same scenario but instead of bringing all their roads, oil wells and widget factories with them, the Canadians show up with just the clothes on their backs. Does this make it better? Now imagine the same scenario but replace the Canadians with some other people having a different (possibly dysfunctional) culture, not speaking English, having lower IQ, etc. I've yet to see a coherent explanation of how this is supposed to work in the real world, something that economists are notoriously challenged by.
As for the rest, I agree wholeheartedly. The U.S. "paused" foreign immigration from 1924-1965, during which wages and benefits rose (basically creating the modern middle class) and we were able, with much struggle and difficulty, to assimilate the new arrivals.
So you are pro globalization? I am not even going to spend a second to watch your videos if you are. Globalization is an evil attack on local sovereignty, democracy, and the uniqueness of local cultures.
Globalization is a problem when it is corporatist privileges, immunities, and subsidies that are being globalized. For example, most of us don't have licenses to create fractional reserve money substitutes out of thin air or to monopolize innovations via patent restrictions, FDA licenses, etc., and most of us can't get our tech start-up funding from the CIA.
Historically, protectionism was used to insulate domestic heavy industries and agriculture from foreign competition, so breaking down trade barriers does confer a substantial benefit to consumers in those areas. However, the contemporary variety of special interest troll is more interested in suppressing competition via intellectual restrictions, regulations, targeted legal immunities, and grants of monetary seignorage, and in leveraging their influence over politicians, bureaucrats, and mass media and their control over the financial system to shape the behavior of consumers and other corporations towards their interests.
To the extent that "globalization" means forcing more countries to use U.S. Treasuries as a monetary reserve, to join the World Intellectual Property Organization, to open up their financial systems to domination by Wall Street, to let unaccountable social media giants control their data, etc., it means one is empowering Western corporatist rent-seekers and their Deep State allies at the expense of these countries.
Thanks so much, Bryan, for your kind and encouraging words and for being part of the "Accelerated Globalists" podcast. It's great to see so many listeners enjoying our conversation. Looking forward to more insightful discussions in the future!
And to everyone reading this, if you like my work, please also consider subscribing to my Substack.
Globalization stops innovation is a straw man. The problem with globalization is that it destabilizes individuals and communities. There may be overall national benefits, but harms a concentrated, as David Autor and others have clearly demonstrated.
If you want to make a real case for globalization, explain what to do for those that globalization impacts badly and in many cases irreprably.
He's made it clear he doesn't care about the negative impacts on the flyover chuds -- he just wants a class of servants like they have in the UAE that will enable him to finally live the aristocratic lifestyle that intellectuals like him deserve. Which, you know, _based_ I guess.
Well, there's a general sense in which the country as a whole benefits more, I think. Of course globalization was good for the world, lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty, but deindustrialization really did a number on the Midwest. And, you know, I'm American.
I just think, look, economists, sociologists, and the rest of them make their nice theories, but looking empirically, the rise of immigration in the USA and Europe seems to have caused more trouble in terms of social unrest than it's worth, not to mention leading to the election of really awful leaders like Trump. Give the blue collar people what they want, close the gates and let the new arrivals assimilate, and we can maybe have more immigration in 50 years. We did this before in the 1920s and had a long period of decrease in inequality up through the 60s. It's like homeostasis.
"Well, there's a general sense in which the country as a whole benefits more, I think."
Yeah economists give you that _sense_ but:
1. The general consensus is that the benefits go mostly to the immigrants themselves (obviously), are slightly positive for the employers and are slightly negative for Americans as a whole.
2. Recent Danish study showing low-skilled immigrants were net drains on government finances no matter what age they came.
3. Consider the a thought experiment (hat tip to Greg Cochran for popularizing it): The U.S. annexes Canada tomorrow, a country with similar demographics, language and culture and about 10 % of our population. The total GDP of the U.S. would go up by about 10% but it's hard to see, other than some minor economies of scale, how the per-capita GDP would increase. Now imagine the same scenario but instead of bringing all their roads, oil wells and widget factories with them, the Canadians show up with just the clothes on their backs. Does this make it better? Now imagine the same scenario but replace the Canadians with some other people having a different (possibly dysfunctional) culture, not speaking English, having lower IQ, etc. I've yet to see a coherent explanation of how this is supposed to work in the real world, something that economists are notoriously challenged by.
As for the rest, I agree wholeheartedly. The U.S. "paused" foreign immigration from 1924-1965, during which wages and benefits rose (basically creating the modern middle class) and we were able, with much struggle and difficulty, to assimilate the new arrivals.
See for example https://open.substack.com/pub/agglomerations/p/manufacturing-jobs-boom-not-reaching?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=wcji
So you are pro globalization? I am not even going to spend a second to watch your videos if you are. Globalization is an evil attack on local sovereignty, democracy, and the uniqueness of local cultures.
Globalization is a problem when it is corporatist privileges, immunities, and subsidies that are being globalized. For example, most of us don't have licenses to create fractional reserve money substitutes out of thin air or to monopolize innovations via patent restrictions, FDA licenses, etc., and most of us can't get our tech start-up funding from the CIA.
Historically, protectionism was used to insulate domestic heavy industries and agriculture from foreign competition, so breaking down trade barriers does confer a substantial benefit to consumers in those areas. However, the contemporary variety of special interest troll is more interested in suppressing competition via intellectual restrictions, regulations, targeted legal immunities, and grants of monetary seignorage, and in leveraging their influence over politicians, bureaucrats, and mass media and their control over the financial system to shape the behavior of consumers and other corporations towards their interests.
To the extent that "globalization" means forcing more countries to use U.S. Treasuries as a monetary reserve, to join the World Intellectual Property Organization, to open up their financial systems to domination by Wall Street, to let unaccountable social media giants control their data, etc., it means one is empowering Western corporatist rent-seekers and their Deep State allies at the expense of these countries.
I learned a lot from Part I. Now back to work. I'll view Part II this weekend.
Cool. I don't think I've ever seen Robin Hanson in a video before.