←back to thread

China

(drewdevault.com)
847 points kick | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mc32 ◴[] No.21585110[source]
>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...”

So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar worker on America with the full complicity of Democrats, Republicans and most of Industry and even unions who didn’t oppose their cozy politicians. They all only saw starry dollar signs...

That’s where we are now. People have had enough. That’s why they put up with the guy no one likes because he’s willing to sever that codependent relationship.

Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to America is... it’s not going to be China...

replies(15): >>21585140 #>>21585157 #>>21585158 #>>21585323 #>>21585326 #>>21585341 #>>21585355 #>>21585449 #>>21585659 #>>21585680 #>>21586024 #>>21586078 #>>21586407 #>>21586727 #>>21587541 #
koube ◴[] No.21585323[source]
The article focuses on human rights abuses which I think is a cogent criticism of China-US trade.

On the economics issue though, readers should know he disagrees with economists, who nearly universally agree that trade with China benefits Americans as a whole, with the caveat that there are concentrated losses in certain populations. Economists are highly certain on this, with uncharacteristically few people responding "uncertain" on the survey [0]. You can go through the other surveys on the IGM Forum to see what more common distributions looks like.

[0] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/china-us-trade

replies(4): >>21585361 #>>21585670 #>>21586808 #>>21587459 #
keiferski ◴[] No.21585361[source]
I’m not sure these economists have spent time in the Rust Belt, then. Entire cities were economically destroyed from the offshoring of jobs to China and other low-cost areas.
replies(6): >>21585415 #>>21585646 #>>21586050 #>>21586247 #>>21586706 #>>21586887 #
1. bduerst ◴[] No.21586887{3}[source]
Where do you think the jobs in the rust belt came from?

The same thing happened to artisan economies with factories during modernization, yet people didn't decry the loss of the local blacksmith when the rust belt took over their jobs too.

The transition from local to city to regional to global specialization is a natural effect of economies of scale. Trying to freeze economic development and preserve the status quo is like trying to push water uphill.

replies(2): >>21587168 #>>21587379 #
2. godtoldmetodoit ◴[] No.21587168[source]
There was most certainly massive push back against industrialization. The Luddite movement being one obvious example.

In the US we ended up with 40 hour work weeks, and universal high school as a government response. We will need similar large measures to deal with globalization and automation this time as well.

replies(1): >>21587295 #
3. bduerst ◴[] No.21587295[source]
Precisely, and as the history of automation has shown, having a social safety net to retrain and shift workers is critical.

Unfortunately the focus is on blaming immigrants and other countries, not helping the disenfranchised American workers get back on their feet. It's easier to be an angry luddite but it's also historically the wrong side to be on.

4. erik_seaberg ◴[] No.21587379[source]
At the city and regional levels, workers could at least go where the added jobs are and compete on the same terms (regulations and cost of living). At the global level that’s rarely permitted.