5 ms·
I read OP's comment more as a neutral statement of a fact than as a justification for the globalization processes. I'd be willing to wager that none of the acto
by plesiv 7y ago
I read OP's comment more as a neutral statement of a fact than as a justification for the globalization processes. I'd be willing to wager that none of the actors pushing these processes are minding either of these two inequality facts (inequality in developed countries rising, inequality is developing countries falling). These actors are driven by their incentives and the current system makes it good for them to further globalization - very much in the same way that it's good for them not need to be careful to be environmentally friendly.
At least to me, "f*g over someone" would imply malicious intent - these economic agents are neither benevolent nor malicious - they simply don't care. In a slightly wider context, this is exactly why an AGI is considered dangerous.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoThat's the Big Lie of economics - that this is just how it is, and people don't/shouldn't care. In fact mainstream neoliberal economic theory has always been about rationalising political actions that operate against the interests of most of the population. The origination and promotion of these economic myths is calculated, deliberate, and absolutely malicious in intent. The Chicago School didn't just happen - it was created, promoted, funded and nurtured as a dogmatic political movement opposed to Keynesianism. Individual actors may not care, but that's exactly the problem -they've been incentivised not to. Under a more humane system, they could just as easily be incentivised towards other actions.