Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

It's not the American's job to care for the welfare of a foreigner and it's not the foreigner's job to care for the American's welfare.

I would say if we're consuming the product then it's "fair" that that work necessary for the making of the product go to a local citizen (Foreign if foreign or domestic if domestic).

Foreign nations have control of their economy and how it runs, whether they allow corruption, nepotism, off-shoring, etc., just as we do. But they can't tell us how to run our economy and we can't tell them how to run theirs.

View on HN

In that case, it's not my (an American) job to care for the welfare of any other American. Why bother drawing the empathy line outside my own family? I want cheaper access for steel and iPhones, and I don't care if this woman has a job or not; I'll be fine either way.

I think that's an awful way to feel about another human, but that's what you're suggesting we do with foreign citizens. Why not, instead, try to build a better society for everyone?

If you think you have unfairly much resources, you can always donate some! There are excellent charities that operate in worse-off countries.

I do, frequently. Are you arguing that all taxation is theft, or are you arguing that it's okay to tax us as long as it's for what you want and not for what I want?

It's how we organize ourselves politically. Yes, mostly we owe allegiance to family. Then the rest of citizens who operate under the same laws and regulations we do.

Now, we have to draw the line some place and that tends to be national governments which is where our direct influence ends.

While we can empathize with N Koreans, for example, we are not the ones who decided upon their government. They are responsible for their self-determination.

When we felt oppression, as a country we fought a war for independence. When we opposed slavery, we fought a civil war. It's a bloody crucible, but you have to forge your own destiny as a nation, unless you're proposing internationalization, which is imperialism by another name.

>It's how we organize ourselves politically.

You're trying to re-install economic partitions at the national level which currently aren't there; "that's how we do things" isn't an argument. "How we organize ourselves politically" with respect to economics has been as an integrated global civilization since the mid to late 20th century.

If economic partitioning is an unqualified good, why not go much smaller than country scale? If it's not an unqualified good, what makes national borders optimal? Doesn't it seem a little bit suspicious that a country grown over hundreds of years of political wrangling just happens to the mathematically optimal economy size?

Basically we do not have political influence on foreign economies and governments, that's why. If they want to become a territory or protectorate, then, sure, we can share.

As it stands, we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve, but it's less sexy to say you support our own poor, functionally illiterate than say you support some people in a country where people made different political and economic decisions.

>we do not have political influence on foreign economies and governments

Through trade (and the threat of trade sanctions) we have enormous influence on foreign governments. The US in aggregate has more leverage over China than (say) Idaho does over California. Why should the citizens of Idaho accept competition from Californians?

If it's because CA and ID both roll up into the federal government, then don't we all roll up into the UN?

>we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve

We do. The welfare state is too weak, we don't do nearly enough redistribution, it's unconscionable that we lack national health insurance, it's unconscionable that we let neighborhood wealth determine school quality and make college cost so much, etc. But raising the price of goods by locking out foreign competition is regressive: the made-in-America premium hurts most when you have the least to spend.

Through congress we have great influence on ID via fed laws. We have a very predictable political and economic system. We can enforce contracts, etc., very ably within our political borders.

Japan would speak to your position otherwise. Some people say it's foolhardy for them to have expensive fruit and vegetables, when they could import cheaper. On the other hand those farmers are self sustaining within their system.

I'm with Seattle anti WTO spirit of '99.

Who is "we"? Idaho can only make laws binding on Californians if it's in concert with other states. Just as the United States can control just about any country it trades with if it's in concert with other UN/WTO members.

So that's why were so effective at combating product dumping and counterfeit goods?

> raising the price of goods by locking out foreign competition is regressive: the made-in-America premium hurts most when you have the least to spend

you could always lower sales tax and raise income tax

That would be great! I don't see why we couldn't do both.

> what makes national borders optimal?

That's where democratic influence stops, beyond which we can't control. Before globalization became a thing, workers commonly had a union, bargaining rights, and a political wing that fought for them. Now that we've entered a global economy, we can't get that leverage anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com