[kafkaesq]

The thing to note here is that this response from YC is not a political one,

Indeed. It wasn't formulated as political -- but the intrinsically the move does have significant political import (as a form of "voting with one's feet", as it were). Which has the potential to send signals that signs, slogans and marches (alone) cannot.

[TheAdamAndChe]

A large reason many people are pushing back against globalism is _because_ of this thinking -- capitalism is blind to political movements, quality of life for its people, or growing inequality. All that matters is the bottom line. If it's cheaper to do it elsewhere, it will move there. But if this leads to yet continued wealth inequality while the laborers work for less in worse conditions, is it a good thing that it created more wealth in the process?

I know that example is an extreme one, but it is an example that is being seen throughout the country. Middle class jobs are being shipped overseas or supplanted by exploited H-1B visa holders. Lower class jobs are being displaced by illegal immigrants willing to do the job for below minimum wage. These are serious issues, and issues that will not be solved in a global economy where the bottom line is king.

[intended]

Well it's hard to say that America has not significantly benefitted from it.

And the gains in the countries which supply the West with their goods are also significant.

So the world on average is significantly better off.

I think the issue today is

1) the huge disparity of the wealth distribution within that average.

2) the inability of human beings as meat space constructs to adapt to those changes. You can't train everyone to be programmers, and as you remove the niches for arts, soft sciences and so on, you remove the ability for the non mathematically inclined to find meaningful, gainful employment.

[mapleoin]

In this case, though, isn't it working against those consequences that you mention? YC's contribution to a non-US company, in terms of guidance, doors opened etc., might be bigger than the money they get back through selling their share of the startups. This will be a net-negative for the US economy and would have created wealth, elevated working conditions etc. elsewhere in the world.

[lkbm]

> In this case, though, isn't it working against those consequences that you mention? YC's contribution to a non-US company, in terms of guidance, doors opened etc., might be bigger than the money they get back through selling their share of the startups.

YC's existence is based on that not being the case, on average.

This is a negative for the US economy not because YC is losing money, but because if we'd let these companies start in the US, we've be getting significantly more of the gains.

[cscurmudgeon]

The problem is that it is the US that has been forcing this down on other countries for decades if not centuries. And the US society benefited a lot from this.

Read up on the Perry expedition.

[TheAdamAndChe]

Is the problem that the US has been doing it? I would argue that, with the internet, massively increased global communication, and a massively different economy from 1853 when the Perry expedition occurred, the problem isn't that the US used to do it long ago when imperialism was the norm, but rather that this form of globalist capitalism is becoming the norm worldwide, to the detriment of the lower and middle classes across the world.

[cscurmudgeon]

There are winners and losers but overall economists agree free trade is good.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafjeduce/v_3a34_3ay_3a2...

In any trade system, there will be losers.

[kafkaesq]

Do they, now? From the abstract we only read that (according to the authors) there is some kind of consensus:

Consensus is particularly strong for propositions of free international trade and capital flows.

But as to what that consensus (in particular, as to whether the effects of free trade are "good", "bad", or "mixed") -- we would need to dig into the full text of the article, which is available only to subscribers.

And anyway that "consensus" was from 2003, and a lot has shifted in the universe since then -- particularly in regard to the question of whether free trade is still a pretty neat idea, or not.

[dukeluke]

From what I understand, free trade allows for unparalleled wealth creation by optimizing the flow and utilization of capital, which is fantastic! The problem is that it optimizes other things too, like labor costs by taking advantage of countries with incredibly low minimum wages, workplace safety standards, and standards of living. Meanwhile, the increased profit doesn't go to the society impacted by the transfer of these jobs, but rather to the capital owners, thus exacerbating wealth inequality. So yes, free trade does create more wealth than non-free trade, but it's not to the benefit of the society losing the jobs.

[cscurmudgeon]

Do you have better more recent studies? Will gladly take it.

[caf]

Voice versus Exit.