Bravo Brett. As I said in the other thread, I think this may well represent a seachange for the US economy, a change that could end our period as the world’s dominant power. It has to happen eventually, after all. Am I certain of this? Of course not. But it’s possible, and we can’t stay on top forever.
Ok, I retract my venom, sorry. I agree the anti-free trade allies are pretty shitty, but there’s plenty of icky people on the pro side, too.
Whether Luddites were crazy is an interesting question. I’d say no; it’s perfectly normal to have an angry response to a new economic development that puts you in the street, especially if its totally out of your control and strikes you as incredibly unfair. Can you imagine what it’s like to be the last shoe cobbler apprentice before industralization takes over the shoe industry?
I think this is a fundamental point of political disagreement over views of the market; lots of libertarians think the market is a-priori right, and if you don’t like what the market did, then the problem is with you. That isn’t the majority view; otherwise we wouldn’t have (popular!) things like unemployment benefits, and retirement risk-pooling (social security), and so on. Most people don’t like market outcomes that violate the “common sense” definition of fairness, and are willing to pay to mitigate them, even if it theoretically, or definitely, reduces long-run growth, or efficiency, or what have you.
Myself, I consider the market just a tool. It’s the best deal going, so get the most you can out of it, but for god’s sake don’t let it run your life.
IMHO, it’s completely morally wrong to accept a market outcome that destroys the economy in Flint, Michigan, putting unemployment at 20%, destroying families, destroying careers, destroying the fabric of society. If you don’t mitigate the damage, and present a vision of how people can deal with it, people aren’t going to put up with it. They’ll pass tariffs, they’ll destroy machines, they’ll riot, they’ll turn the goddamn country into Argentina.
You can’t take a man’s bread and tell him its for the good of the economy.
Oh, Kyle: you’re right, 3) is better. The reason Anax favors 1) , I suspect, is because he doesn’t think there’s a chance in hell that we’re going to get 3). Same here.
My preferred policy order:
- Trade with mitigation.
- No trade.
- Unrestricted trade.
Basically, if the overlords stay in power and try to stick us with 3), fuck it. If they won’t agree to 1), then 2) is the nuclear option to bring them to the bargaining table.
Particularly not when the level of insane malfeasance and waste in the economy means that “for the good of the economy” ends up really meaning “for the good of the incredibly rich.”
One other thing which I’ve never seen mentioned is the volatility of using overseas labor. We’re thankful to live in a time of relative piece, however, what would happen if India & Pakistan, god forbid, started a shooting war. What would happen if China fell apart into civil war or started down a road of increased confrontation with the US and other western countries?
The US, as a country, has quite a bit of control over its own destiny, but much less control over those we’re starting to outsource key jobs to. It’s also follow to assume that good trading partners will remain friends based on common economic interest alone. Before World War 1, France and Germany were each other’s largest trading partners.
The reasons that it’s good for the West are comparative advantage, the relationship between trade and peace, and an evening of the income disparity between 1st and 3rd world nations(which should in turn produce even more peace).
Anax- The reasons for preferring not helping those hurt over not allowing the hurt to occur is that other people will use the invention. Other firms will outsource to India. You can lose your job now to some Indian guy and have an American company benefit or you can lose your job later when some German company undersells your market and bankrupts your company on the strength of it’s cheap Indian labor force. Unless, of course, you further restrict trade to prevent consumers from buying the German product.
At some point you have to let the market have it’s way with you, no matter how painful, or risk your country becoming a shithole for everyone, not just whatever sector is getting hurt by technology or trade this week. Free trade’s worst case scenario at least has some rich people, restriction of trade’s worst case has no rich people whatsoever.
Oh, and in Brave New World there is production for it’s own sake. That’s the extent of my reference.
Jason- The Luddite’s anger was completely understandable, but their core ideas were absolutely insane, and the world of today is better for countries absorbing the short term labor damage in exchange for long term everyone gain.
However, this issue is a two way street. My recollection is that when Pakistan and India were at nearly at blows last year, a significiant reason why India ended up taking a deep breath and offering to negotiate was that the Indian government was getting a huge amount of economic pressure by foreign companies with massive investments in India who feared the economic chaos if things continued to escalate. I have some vague recollection that high level Indian economic and trade Ministers were getting phone calls from the CEOs of big companies and that when those Ministers went to the Prime Minister it was a major reason he decided to negotiate. In other words, the more dependant Pakistan and India are on globalization and foreign investment, the more that functions as an anchor of stability.
Of course there’s no guarantee that something will will never happen but this is IMO an example of the long term net positive that is potentially possible here. Increased economic integration between countries tends to increase diplomatic stability, over the long haul. The situation between France and Germany is a fluke IMO, a result of a massive spike in nationalism and also the fact that many capitalists in both countries felt war would actually be a benefit (this was in the era before total war when war often led to fat restitution payments, advantageous economic concessions, and access to profitable colonies / foreig possessions). In the modern era of total war and no reparations, war is a massive economic loss that very few major comanies would endorse.
Dan
What are these insane core ideas? That it’s ok to fight back violently when you’re being thrown out on the street through no fault of their own? I wouldn’t do it, but I can’t criticize them too much.
Uh, how does helping those hurt keep anyone from using the invention? For chrissakes, there are alternatives to a binary trade/no trade framework.
I’m sorry, can you explain how this is different from when the Japanese started selling foreign-built cars in America? Because my recollection is that everyone said the same sort of things then.
Heh, this country is hitting the shitter… give it ten or twenty years. and by shitter I dont mean barbarian invasion ala Roman Empire… just a quiet depression like the british empire after WW1. no biggie. China and India will pick up the pace. btw. i didnt read this thread. just read headline and responded with out of my ass thoughts! I’m innovative!
etc