
Globalization’s losers are revolting - tomduncalf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/27/the-losers-have-revolted-and-brexit-is-only-the-beginning/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wonk-revolt-720a-top%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
======
basseq
2016 is shaping up to be an interesting year, and the worldview espoused in
this article is one reason. While the EU or other institutions may be "right"
in their aspirations, the fact of the matter is that the status quo _simply
isn 't working_ for a large number of people.

It's no surprise then that these "losers" are seeking something better for
themselves. They may not know what the right answer is, but no one does. And
the argument that "we should keep trying the same thing" eventually falls flat
with no results. So a headlong leap into the unknown looks better than
pounding your head against the same wall over and over again.

Which means this boils down to a _very obvious_ realization: people who don't
see the benefits of the status quo don't like the status quo. To those for
whom the status quo is _working_ , this comes as a shock. And for whatever
reason, this year is the one where that minority becomes a majority.

What I've found shocking in all this is the _vitrol_ of the "winners".
Brexiters (and Trump voters) have been called naive, idiots, racists,
xenophobes, sheeple, and worse. ("Losers" comes to mind.)

No matter what happens as a result of the UK/EU decision, the U.S.
presidential election, or other policy changes around the world, we have to
figure out how to fix the _problem_ at the core of all this. Why so many
people are unhappy. And name-calling isn't going to help.

~~~
badsock
What I find disappointing is that the left, who used to represent the working
class, is missing this opportunity to address that class's needs explicitly.

The fact that this huge amount of dissatisfaction is being channelled into
squabbles over immigration rather than, say, supporting massive upgrades to
vocational training infrastructure, is a huge missed opportunity.

~~~
Futurebot
The Left has been calling it out non-stop. In the US, it's establishment
liberals (in Europe, they'd mostly qualify as right-of-center) that have been
defenders of the status quo.

Take a look at:

[https://www.jacobinmag.com/](https://www.jacobinmag.com/)
[http://fredrikdeboer.com/published-
writing/](http://fredrikdeboer.com/published-writing/)
[https://www.dissentmagazine.org/](https://www.dissentmagazine.org/)
[http://coreyrobin.com/](http://coreyrobin.com/)

Just to start with. There's a huge rift between what's called the Left, and
what actually is the Left right now.

~~~
iofj
The left is currently identified with Hillary Clinton, for obvious reasons.
The right is identified with Donald Trump, for the same reason.

It's not going to be a good year for either of their images.

~~~
LBXrRkxx
The left is not the same as the US Democratic Party, and the right is not the
same as the US Republican Party!

~~~
throwanem
No, but if you want to play the US electoral game, those are your options.

------
dgllghr
You know, I have a lot more sympathy for the under-privileged and the under-
served who have politics with which I disagree when I see articles
categorizing them as losers. Maybe sympathy is a good lesson here.

~~~
josinalvo
I was afraid the article would go with the bad connotation of losers (i.e.:
people that 'deserve to lose') but, reading the article, it felt more just
like a descriptive connotation (i.e.: people that are losing money and quality
of life)

Still, your point is generally valid

~~~
throwanem
You can't talk about "losers" in modern American English without invoking that
connotation. I am quite certain that whoever wrote that headline knows this;
you don't get to produce content for an A-list blog like the Washington Post
without having a working knowledge of semiotics and the dialect in which
you're writing.

~~~
cvwright
I think it's a subtle (OK, maybe not so subtle) jab at Trump and his
supporters. He uses this kind of language all the time -- calling people he
doesn't like "losers".

The author here is attempting to be clever by turning around and using the
same trick against them. I wonder if it had the desired effect...

~~~
throwanem
Sounds like WaPo is still smarting over getting its press card pulled. (As
they should be! It was a brilliant move, and it's had them on the back foot
ever since - their latter coverage of Trump reads like a cross between red-top
tabloid and schoolyard bigmouth.)

------
OliverJones
It's true that financial capitalism doesn't work for most people. A
consequence of globalization has been, to coin a phrase, "rising inequality."

Financial capitalism puts the developed economies on the same track toward
inequality as the underdeveloped extractive economies.

For example, Tim Cook's Apple has a huge hoard of cash. But their powerful
investors (Icahn, for example) won't let them spend it on developing new
products, training workers, building new factories, paying taxes to help
develop infrastructure, or even raising wages much. So it just accumulates. It
serves as collateral so Apple can borrow money to buy back stock. So the wall
street boys can have bigger megayachts.

There's no way to vote against financial capitalism. So people vote for
proxies. The Brexit vote, and the strength of the movements behind Bernie
Sanders and the casino developer from New Jersey are those proxies.

I wonder whether the developed world's political leadership can figure out how
to unwind financial capitalism without the help of a global pandemic, famine,
or great war. It's seeming less and less likely.

As for "the end of history," I'll have some of whatever Fukuyama was smoking
when that vision flitted across his consciousness.

~~~
stcredzero
_Financial capitalism puts the developed economies on the same track toward
inequality as the underdeveloped extractive economies._

Not quite the same track. The poor in the developed economies are far better
off. The feeling of injustice is equally strong, however, due to the way human
psychology works. That is a real problem societies need to address.

~~~
RobertoG
"The poor in the developed economies are far better off"

The grandparent said "the same track". People are not revolting because they
had bad times they are revolting because they don't see the end of it. They
see a trend. So, who say that they (we) are not going to finish like the poor
in the not developed world?

For instance, in Europe there was a de facto 'social contract', the welfare
state, that is being dismantled using as excuse the need for 'austerity'.

~~~
nickik
How to we know it? Many reasons, studying the problem, creating models and and
ways of thinking.

The reality is that asia comming online in the global market is fantastic.
Even the people whos income has gone down, they profit from cheap products and
more importantly further development in technology.

Their is zero evidence that we will be dragged down by this.

The hole "austerity" thing is simple false. Very few countries have done any
meaningful change. Most of them still have massive deficit that are growing
and the government budget is generaly always growing as well.

------
csense
As someone who grew up in the Rust Belt, US and world politics have been very
interesting this year. It seems like the issues that are most important to my
hometown are finally making an impression on world politicians.

Entire local economies were broken by the first wave of factory closings due
to globalization in the 1980's, and still haven't really recovered.

During the 2008 primaries, Obama recognized the problem: "You go into these
small towns in Pennsylvania, and, like, a lot of small towns in the Midwest,
the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they
fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each
successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna
regenerate, and they have not."

He nailed it on the head. Too bad he went on to say, "They get bitter. They
cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
Translation: They're conservatives [1] and racists, so they deserve it. And
now we know that the Bush administration isn't the last presidency to let
these places fall through the cracks.

This thread's top comment says "They may not know what the right answer is,
but no one does." An important clue is that the crisis in these communities
started when factories closed because it was cheaper to do it overseas. It
doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the answer is reversing the globalization
-- put some taxes on imports. Another comment from this thread:

"Furthermore, people keep talking about the free trade zone as if they were
children and the word "free" were a piece of candy. Free trade is not an
absolute good and not a great thing when it stifles a country's growth. The US
became an economic superpower not because of free trade but because of
protectionism..."

Donald Trump wants to put a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. A lot of people I
know would overlook a lot of his shortcomings for that policy position alone.
I'm starting to wonder if I might be one of them.

[1] Many Rust Belt states have historically had a strong labor union presence,
and to this day are classified as bellwethers and battleground states.

~~~
nickik
Lets see howuch the will love the reverse of globalisation when the buy any
modern product for a much higher price an the factories, if the come back,
will pay a terrible wage because their is no global market to service.

Essentially what this would mean is that the rest of prpductive america would
have to pay you money for making their lives worse of. With the additional
benefit of also massivly diminishing the rest of the countries chances to
compete in the actual competitive market so the can pay your inflated, but
tine wage.

Basically you (your ideas) make everybody worse of (and I mean everybody in
the world) so that you can feel good about having a job instead of living on
wellfare. Wellfare would actually be cheaper if you want to live on the
pockets of the rest of your country.

------
swagtricker
Let's face the facts of the last 50 years - democracy didn't eventually
"destroy" communism: capitalism did. How did we think capitalism wouldn't
eventually turn on democracy as well?

~~~
louithethrid
The problem is that democracy needs a systematic destruction of unbound great
fortunes so they dont aggregate and break the system. Im sure updated
democracys to come will have that. Same as the "konstruktive misstrauensvotum"
in germany came after hitler happend.

------
whazor
Globalization is unfair. The biggest problem is that minimum incomes are
different. So that people from one side in the planet can do the same job for
less. In Europe it is even more crazy, people from country A can work in
country B for a lower wage. It is unfair for the people who want to contribute
fairly into their own society, they get frustrated and feel like a loser.

~~~
tim333
Well life is unfair. Globalization has probably made things fairer globally -
China for example is far closer in income levels to the west than it was. It
does create problems for some groups though including many of the Brexiters.

~~~
nicknamexyz
Have a look at India, too, where numerous tech-talents are coming from. In my
opinion, it is also a matter of Western arrogance. There is a constant
preaching about how strong the Western economy is, which might be the current
case, but given the preconditions in China and India, I think they might
achieve even higher standards than the West. (Look at their new
supercomputer.) Globalization will probably result in a greater competition
and people will have to struggle more in order to make a living.

~~~
IndianAstronaut
People forget that a worker is also a consumer. An Indian or Chinese worker is
now a consumer of goods like Ford cars, Coca Cola, Intel chips, etc.

------
kazinator
> _That 's because Britain is essentially ripping up its free trade deal with
> the rest of Europe. _

Countries can engage in free trade deals without losing their sovereignty. For
instance:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_F...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement)

This hasn't entailed Canada adopting the US dollar or joining the US as the
51st state.

------
pasbesoin
Good.

I'm to the point of telling my friends I'm about 50% likely to vote for Trump.
Let it burn.

And I don't mean this rhetorically.

I wouldn't put too much stock in polls, this time around.

P.S. In terms of being an effective, ethical leader, I think Trump is a
terrible choice.

But, I think the extant system needs to go. As I said, let it burn.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Um, do you have any idea what "let it burn" is going to look like, in terms of
human suffering? And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely
to get more than their fair share of that suffering.

So I cannot agree with you. Bad as things are, they'd have to be a _lot_ worse
for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response.

~~~
antisthenes
> And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more
> than their fair share of that suffering.

Consider a simple thought experiment in punitive game theory.

Consider person A (non-wealthy) and B (wealthy). If person A wants to punish
person B and has the opportunity to do so at cost X to themselves, while
inflicting cost 10X on person B, it makes sense for them to do so. It is
essentially a bargaining advantage - in fact, this sort of punitive bargaining
technique is really the only leverage the less wealthy have against the
capitalist class.

This whole principle lay behind the formation of unions, because while the
punitive bargaining power of one person is meaningless, when a good portion of
your work force refuses to work, you are suffering real losses and are forced
to negotiate.

This is the logic behind letting the system burn and I think Brexit actually
confirmed this theory much better than back-of-the-envelope game theory ever
could.

In just a few days, the British elite lost how much of its wealth, compared to
the bottom half of the population?

> Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an
> appropriate response.

This is completely subjective and a matter of perspective. It also depends on
how long-term your view is. The optimal strategy here is not as clear as it
may seem.

~~~
ryandrake
Also, consider that the system burning may actually benefit the ~50% or so who
vote to burn it. Who wins when "the global economy" improves? Largely the
already wealthy. Who wins when the stock market goes up? At least in the USA,
about 50% of us do not [1].

If everyone in the bottom 50% loses 1% of their wealth while everyone in the
top 50% loses 10% of their wealth, those initially at the bottom, while now
still likely at the bottom, are now (when considered relatively) doing
significantly better than they were before. They would rationally vote for
such a deal. If you don't believe that, look at the reverse: when you get a 1%
raise and your neighbor gets a 10% raise, you end up worse off. (Look at Bay
Area housing prices when one group of people quickly becomes wealthier than
everyone else)

1:
[http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-perce...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-percent-
americans-have-no-money-in-stocks/)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But if the result of the system burning is that the poor can't afford food,
because there is very little, they don't benefit no matter how much wealth the
wealthy lose.

This is not hyperbole. Everyone seems to be assuming that "burn it all" only
does minor damage. (The wealthy lose 10%? _That 's_ your definition of "burn
the system"?) But succeeding in trying to take down the system _really takes
down the system_. It's not just the kind of minor blip you're talking about.

~~~
pasbesoin
> really takes down the system

Well, for one, that's exactly what I mean.

I've hit the half-century mark with pretty much nothing to live for.

My last full-time gig went to India, after I was asked to train two people in
India who after 2 months still had no clue.

Every time you read about system X being breached and Y hundreds of thousands
of PII and financial records compromised?

Well, I think of those two hapless fellows in India. And the VP's and C-suite
schmucks who saved a few bucks and made a few bucks more for themselves by
screwing over their own systems.

Let it burn.

P.S. Nothing wrong with Indians. But in this particular circumstance, they and
their circumstances were totally incompetent with respect to the job at hand.

And... inequality is an enormous problem in India, as well.

Finally, it's been argued repeatedly and, IIRC, demonstrated at least in some
social science research and papers as well as in e.g. fMRI studies and the
like, that a primary role of the human mind is _comparative_ analysis and
ranking.

The low end may lose a lot, but if it destroys some of degree of ranking, it
may prove to be an advantage.

And, in chaos, you end up ranked primarily with your local peers, as opposed
to regional and strategic forces. You may be miserable, but socially, you may
have more value.

(Think of the tremendous and enduring bonding experience of "grunts" in the
military. On the one hand, you are the low end of the low -- cannon fodder. On
the other, you are essential to your unit. The latter, for many, proves to
have enormous value. My Great Uncle Joe continued to attend his unit's
reunions well into his 80's, until shortly before he passed.)

So... Until you place that misery in context, you have not qualified it from a
human perspective.

------
marcusgarvey
Combine this current sentiment with the results from the job losses to come
from self-driving vehicles and automation...volatility ahead.

~~~
noobermin
What do you think then, is now extreme measures like BIG or negative income
taxes imperative and no longer just nice ideas?

~~~
marcusgarvey
I think it's time for the powers that be to activate Plan B. I would prefer
Plan B to be something like a basic income. But it could also be out-of-the-
box ideas, like "let's have a major war to distract the homefront and focus
energy on an external enemy."

------
niftich
People look out and vote for their own self-interest. Previously the two goals
may have aligned, but that chart showing income growth per percentile bracket
is extremely telling.

It's natural that economic policy would shift in response to unfavorable
outcomes. This may mean severing free-trade agreements in favor of
protectionism. But it remains to be seen whether these changes are drastic
enough to alter foreign policy, and jeopardize military alliances we've since
the last world war.

------
Mikeb85
Glad they point this out, although it's been quite obvious to economists for
awhile. And yes, it is only the beginning. The EU will fall, Trump will win,
and free trade will be scaled back until we figure out a better way of taking
care of our citizens (and the welfare state/guaranteed income might be the
answer, but not at current levels of immigration).

~~~
jessriedel
If it was so obvious to those economists that "Leave" would win _this
particular_ referendum, they could have made millions trading on that
confidence.

~~~
Mikeb85
I guarantee plenty of traders say it coming. But most traders aren't writing
for mainstream publications either.

~~~
kristianc
Most of the big money (at the bookmakers at least) was being staked on Remain
and the currency sell offs are largely down to traders being stuck in the
wrong positions.

~~~
Mikeb85
Most of the big money isn't traders, but banks, oil corps, they take currency
positions to expedite business dealings. 'Traders' are in it just for profit.
The 'big money' did wake up late, but they also don't generally speculate.

------
hoju
Why would leaving the EU obviously make the UK "permanently poorer"? Norway
and Switzerland are doing fine outside the EU. The majority of UK's exports
are with non-EU countries, but the EU has few external FTA's (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements)).
This is because any deal can be vetoed by a member state= - an example is a
recent proposed deal with Australia was derailed because Italy wanted to
protect their tomato industry. Consequently the EU still has no FTA's with US
(TTIP likely not passed until 2020), China, India, Japan, Brazil, etc. And
these non-EU countries are where the actual growth is happening in the world.

Leaving the EU will allow UK the flexibility to develop trade agreements with
the world and increase their exports outside the EU. "Permanently poorer"? -
this is propaganda.

------
noobermin
I'm not sure I entirely buy this. Aren't the same groups who tried to hoodwink
us into thinking income and wealth inequalities are natural, normal,
unavoidable, or even non-existent the same folks who were on the side of the
Brexit? That was my impression, at least.

~~~
Someone
One must distinguish those voting for the Brexit from the politicians
advocating for it. I doubt many of the former are free market advocates, but
the latter may be because they typically are not part of the former group.
Many politicians are (somewhat) opportunistic and change opinion whenever they
think it gives them more power. That makes sense, as, for example, one may
prefer getting a seat advocating beliefs that are 80% aligned with one's
belief to getting no seat advocating one's own beliefs.

In extreme cases, opportunism takes the upper hand, though, and people or
parties simply move to where the votes are. One could argue even that is not a
completely bad thing. What's wrong with a politician so devoted to his
profession that he is willing to set aside his own preferences for those of
the people he serves? In some sense, it is like a physician giving birth
control recipes to those who want them while personally being against birth
control. Hard to understand, maybe, and also not something one should expect
from everybody, but not necessarily a sign of an evil mind.

------
keithpeter
[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/193UcK-0Ec185Pf_WZNNZ...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/193UcK-0Ec185Pf_WZNNZ5noR5NKW_WgJXrN-
idb7qSg/)

[http://civichall.org/civicist/defined-by-the-filter-
bubble/](http://civichall.org/civicist/defined-by-the-filter-bubble/)

May help with English context.

------
macawfish
"And yet, and yet. It's easy for a generation that has only known peace and
relative prosperity to forget that the arc of the political universe is long,
and it bends toward wherever you point it. If that's toward chauvinism and
isolationism, well, that's what you'll get."

------
WalterBright
Consider the free trade zone that is the US. Would anyone think it is a good
idea to put a tariff wall around California?

~~~
noobermin
This has been said before. The different states in the United States are far
more alike than say the UK and Poland.

~~~
WalterBright
The states in the US used to be far different than they are now. Free trade
and free movement of people within the US has been a homogenizing influence as
well as making the US an economic powerhouse (taking full advantage of the
principle of comparative advantage).

Recall that the southern states used to be so different from the northern ones
they were willing to start a war over it.

------
glasz
"the world has enjoyed an unprecedented run of peace, prosperity and
cooperation the last 25 years"

and publications wonder why their readers are running. i can't even run fast
enough from utter shit like that. or am i wrong and the world only consists of
a few states in europe?!

you just cannot make this up.

~~~
RGamma
So it was precedented before? When has there been equally little wars, equally
much prosperity and cooperation (measured relative to the state of
civilization at the time)?

Considering what an unfriendly place the world has been in the past centuries
(diseases, terrible working conditions, decade-long wars) this is not an
unreasonable statement to make. These things still exist, but certainly less
pronounced when averaged over time and space.

Edit: See [http://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-
better...](http://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-
you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/)

------
bhouston
In these types of changes there are riches to be made. The current crop of
Russian billionaires made the seeds of their riches in the turbulence
transition from Communism to Capitalism. There are likely to be a lot of
opportunities here as well if you can find the opportunities.

~~~
brbrodude
"made"

------
iua
This is an interesting point-

MEP Daniel Hannan on the differences between the US Constitution and the EU's-

[https://youtu.be/dS6hQQ2pyco](https://youtu.be/dS6hQQ2pyco)

------
godisdad
see also: [http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mark-ames/33836/we-
the-s...](http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mark-ames/33836/we-the-spiteful)

------
gortok
Tip: If you've run out of 'free articles' to read this month, you can open an
incognito window (or 'private browsing') on your favorite browser and paste
the link in. The 'web' button works for the WSJ, but not the WaPo.

~~~
specialp
Probably going to get down-voted to hell for this, but you all ever think of
supporting those whom you are reading double digit number of articles a month
from with a subscription? They aren't terribly expensive. Decent news sources
are dying off and being replaced with junk.

~~~
whamlastxmas
No, because the information in articles is usually available in literally
hundreds of other places with nearly identical content. That someone on Hacker
News submitted a paywalled article is not a reason to support them, it's more
an argument to provide a different source. WaPo is just as much "junk" as many
other sites, depending on your perspective.

------
dang
"The world's losers" is linkbait, and taking the article's argument on its own
terms, Brexit is hardly the beginning, so that's misleading (and linkbait
too). Therefore the HN guidelines mandate a change of title. If anyone can
suggest a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

------
dkarapetyan
The world has not had losers in an absolute sense for a while now. Relatively
there is always a loser but as far as survival matters are concerned if you
are in a stable region of the world then it is mostly a solved problem. I
don't think this is an example of "losers revolting" but just another instance
of the less organized masses working against their own interests while being
cajoled by slightly more organized political savants in order to prop up their
own interests.

~~~
chdjdjdnc
You're right! Those not-losers are so successful that some can even afford
refrigerators!

