|
Rex-Goliath posted:So I know there's almost zero chance Mark hasn't been posted itt but just in case: I had never heard of him until this year, now I see people sharing videos of him all over the place. What gives? Did he put out a book or something, I guess I like his videos but I'm just curious how he became prominent.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Helsing posted:None-sense. The one-child policy is about as anti-liberal a policy as you could possibly have and it was implemented at the same time that China was opening itself up to greater foreign investment and trade. Again, you're just making bald assertions here and not supplementing them with any actual evidence. The Marxist labor-capital framing is an antiquated and an ever more absurd over-simplification in a world currently dominated by populist movements dismantling many of the things you blame the elites for not providing. Disingenuous is a leftist downplaying what that chart means to workers. Moving wealth from rich countries to poor countries across the globe is one of the most fundamentally difficult things to make happen. Liberalism was advertised as being able to do it and delivered. Peace is also difficult and liberalism brought competing powers into a single global framework that delivered peace without mutually assured destruction. If you think the environment is bad now watch what happens to climate change collaboration if this framework weakens. The first world middle class didn't benefit as much as everyone else but that doesn't excuse them for allying with business elites to spite minorities or directing the energy of their recent resurgence towards lashing out at immigrants. Surely instead of 'sticking it to the elite' with Brexit and Trump they could have gone for higher tax rates or any other actual policy instead. At some point of course we need to figure out the underlying causes but you're the one who typically likes framing everything as a narrative of choice. Though you're unwilling to assign agency to anyone except your ideological opponents. No of course we don't need to treat everything as a package deal and the idea that we might approach global economic problems that way is absurd. Economic liberalization worked for China. That's clear and there is a lot of time left before the book is closed on their development. They're not the only example of course either and other examples have gotten essentially the whole 'package' like Japan or Korea. Helsing posted:The other thing that globalization shills can't quite account for is how sustainable the growth of third world incomes will turn out to be in the face of climate change. If the first world architects of the current global order had put half the energy into establishing universal environmental regulations that they've put into trying to secure investor rights then we might not be stumbling into a civilization threatening catastrophe right now. But Liberalism has gotten so atrophied and weak that all its advocates can do is retrospectively pretend that the last 40 years aren't a failed experiment but rather a noble exercise in humanitarian charity on behalf of Chinese peasants. The last gasp of someone trying to downplay the economic development of peasants they don't care about : cite the environment as if economic growth of the first world middle class doesn't come with similar environmental consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
It may not be the moral option, but if you give people a choice between allying with the business elites to hurt minorities, and allying with other business elites to hurt themselves, a lot of people are gonna choose the former.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I had never heard of him until this year, now I see people sharing videos of him all over the place. What gives? Did he put out a book or something, I guess I like his videos but I'm just curious how he became prominent. He's been pretty prominent since he released Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea in 2013. I'm guessing people are talking about him more over the last year since he's had a lot to say about Trump and the rise of right-wing populists in general. His stuff was posted a lot in D&D a couple of years ago, up until the election turned a lot of economic discussions in USPol super toxic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I had never heard of him until this year, now I see people sharing videos of him all over the place. What gives? Did he put out a book or something, I guess I like his videos but I'm just curious how he became prominent. I wouldn't at all say he's become prominent but he's definitely catching on. The reason why is because he's generally been correct about things for half a decade now and his more insane predictions (Brexit, Trump) coming to pass is causing people to listen to what he's saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
call to action posted:As they should. Nobody should ever accept "well the poor people in China are slightly less poor now" as a valid excuse for the complete destruction of the American middle class. There isn't an excuse I can think of yet for what the American middle class has done to itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Also he's not at all a pundit like some want him to be and isn't afraid to call out people who think he'll tell them everything they want to hear. Check out his talk in Greece that the clip where he coined 'trumpism' is from. Just a little bit further in that discussion they ask him what the solution for Greece is, hoping that he'll lay the blame on the bankers and rich and give them an easy solution, but he tells them he doesn't have any idea because Greece itself can't decide what it wants to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There isn't an excuse I can think of yet for what the American middle class has done to itself. Fraud victims is what I'd call it
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Aloof navel gazing, or omphaloskepsis if you will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:I wouldn't at all say he's become prominent but he's definitely catching on. The reason why is because he's generally been correct about things for half a decade now and his more insane predictions (Brexit, Trump) coming to pass is causing people to listen to what he's saying. after the Trump win he also called Renzi's referendum right, and said only the parliamentary systems will save the France, Netherlands and Germany elections from being Trumped
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
As said, it's mostly that he has correctly predicted Brexit and Trump (and the Renzi referendum) and more importantly, he has a coherent narrative that explains what is going on in larger terms than a single country's politics. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but given how things have evolved it's hard to argue he's entirely wrong. Thought-provoking at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Actually had dinner with Blyth when I was a research assistant in economics a few years ago. Man is a really entertaining speaker as his narratives are so solid, and he gets around a lot. At one point he told us how the Qatari finance minister (after four Johnny Walker & Cokes) explained to him that the WC bid was a joint one with the UAE, and straight up admitted they did a lot of "outreach" to African countries to win the bid (shock I know). In a small lecture he gave a few hours before (advertising his Austerity book at our university) he was dropping austerity truth bombs left and right, mainly taking from his book. GaussianCopula probably would have gone apeshit if he was there. I've never seen a crowd of old people so quiet, even after he said straight to their faces that the bailout was to save their pensions and not for the 1% exclusively. Political economists are the best economists, but I guess being such a straight talker kinda limits him to his Watson youtube videos, RT and a the odd gig or two. School Nickname fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
call to action posted:As they should. Nobody should ever accept "well the poor people in China are slightly less poor now" as a valid excuse for the complete destruction of the American middle class. I agree! The fact that exclusively due to trade the global poverty level has decreased from 45% (people living with less than 2$ppp) to less than 5% in 35 years is not really relevant because who cares about those couple of millions brown people. What is important is to keep the ideological Leftist imperative intact, which means that trade is bad because it smells somewhat like Capitalism and that's certainly bad because someone said it is!!!!! This is not at all the opinion of some non-poor, sheltered Westerner who can not possibly fathom the material reality of a 40% decline in global poverty. It is not the opinion of someone who prefers outdated leftist ideology to facts and, by virtue of disconnected echo-chamber dogmatism, belongs to the groups responsible for the death of Western liberalism and leftism. nono, not at all
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Remember all the horribleness that people in Dayton Ohio suffer is worth it because some person in Bangladesh a place most posters will never visit has a job which involves them being crushed by a badly built factory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:I agree! I'm curious how this nets out with population growth. Like if there used to be 2 billion people in poverty, but now there's beena 40% decline, only at the same time the population doubled... so... in reality there's just as much suffering as before just less *on average*. This is a half assed question/theory not an opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
I'd be more willing to buy the idea that globalization is some magnanimous way of elevating people in other countries if the people doing it weren't getting filthy rich and also made absolutely no sacrifices on their part. No one is fooled that the Chinese guy being better off (temporarily until his or her job is moved to a cheaper country) isn't a side effect of the actual goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Hey remember when globalization was going to make the middle class stronger because companies were going to open thousands of US factories so they could sell in newly opened foreign markets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Every system has benefitted the rich and powerful the most, but this is the first one that has the side effect of benefiting the poor as well. Just to be clear, I am not a free trade zealot and I think that the idea of perpetual growth is a horrible, destructive fantasy. I think that we should conceive of a world where zero or very low growth is achieved without sacrificing peace and stability (which the current system cannot deliver.) I think there is a place for keeping some production and industry local, because a lot of what life is about is the day-to-day quality of it that is not reflected in a pay stub if that life is lived in a hollowed-out shell of something that once was. But at the same time, trade does deliver real, unprecedented benefits to huge numbers of people. There needs to be a balance, as much as the politics of the moment denies that can exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Every system has benefitted the rich and powerful the most, but this is the first one that has the side effect of benefiting the poor as well. It's also the first to enrich the wealthy to this degree in addition to crushing the labor movement on a global scale. Oh! And it also made the wealthy elite international entities unaccountable to any one government. So that's pretty cool too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
It's pretty stupid to make your unplanned side benefit of helping the poor the ones that don't vote in your country. Asking people to accept worse conditions out of the goodness of their heart while the people making that request are living large is really, really dumb if you plan on actually getting elected. Like the point being that even if that plan is good it's basically an impossible sell to get people on board with it.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
It's also possible to accept that sorta-free global trade has elevated a bunch of people from "really loving poor" to just "poor" while also thinking it isn't the best solution. It seems like there's a hard ceiling to how much things can improve under global capitalism. Like, it seems destined to average out to almost everyone except the super rich just being "normal poor" even if fewer people are literally starving in the streets. It's also kind of difficult to really isolate how much of the benefits in recent decades are due to global capitalism versus a bunch of other changes, since there are countless things that would also correlate with the decrease in poverty over that time period. I think most people would agree that trade benefits a poor country which was previously relatively isolated (as in the case of China), but a bunch of policies specifically considered "liberal" are often not correlated with this success (as Helsing pointed out). One thing that I'm not sure about is how much of a positive or negative effect the free flow of capital has (and there's obviously a continuum here, so it's not some binary thing). Looking at a country like China, for example, it's entirely possible that simply opening the country up to trade has been the largest source of its success, rather than policies intended to benefit investors (and let's not kid ourselves - even if the net result was positive, these policies were promoted to make rich people richer).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:So I know there's almost zero chance Mark hasn't been posted itt but just in case: School Nickname posted:Actually had dinner with Blyth when I was a research assistant in economics a few years ago. Man is a really entertaining speaker as his narratives are so solid, and he gets around a lot. At one point he told us how the Qatari finance minister (after four Johnny Walker & Cokes) explained to him that the WC bid was a joint one with the UAE, and straight up admitted they did a lot of "outreach" to African countries to win the bid (shock I know). gently caress me this guy is convincing. I could learn a few things from this man, not necessarily just the things he's saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Every system has benefitted the rich and powerful the most, but this is the first one that has the side effect of benefiting the poor as well. The poorest of the poor (the bottom 25%) were largely left behind, but it really helped middle income nations that finally industrialized. Of course, that industrialization probably could have been done with a very different form of trade. Trade still needs to exist, but in many ways I think how globalization worked out was completely unsustainable and disastrous and the ultimate result is we now have a far more dangerous world. Also, in terms of geopolitics, we also created an authoritarian expansionist near-superpower. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
I'm going to make the counterargument that the decrease in poverty we're seeing is the direct result of the investments and funds made available by the World Bank and IMF rather than the often predatory demands that follow those investments. If you replace dirt roads with asphalt, tills with tractors and people with conveyor belts you're going to have economic growth almost irregardless of what policies follow. If you look at the results it's clear as a day that the third world economies that worked around the policies advocated by the Washington consensus rather than with it are doing better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Like, it seems destined to average out to almost everyone except the super rich just being "normal poor" even if fewer people are literally starving in the streets. This assumes that the wealthy will stop robbing people once they've finished destroying the world's middle classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'm going to make the counterargument that the decrease in poverty we're seeing is the direct result of the investments and funds made available by the World Bank and IMF rather than the often predatory demands that follow those investments. If you replace dirt roads with asphalt, tills with tractors and people with conveyor belts you're going to have economic growth almost irregardless of what policies follow. If you look at the results it's clear as a day that the third world economies that worked around the Washington consensus rather than with it are doing better. China (and many of the other middle income states) were never especially reliant on IMF/WB funds in the first place. If anything the states the most reliant on the IMF usually deindustrialize if anything (Argentina/Ukraine) since that funding usually goes to backing back debt/temporarily supporting its local currency then the country gets hit with an austerity crisis. China actually got a pretty sweetheart deal if anything. One part if anything was how cheap their labor was, and the second part was keeping the Sino-Soviet/Russian split alive (this completely and utterly failed).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:in a world currently dominated by populist movements dismantling many of the things you blame the elites for not providing. Haha, do you honestly believe that the populists just appeared one day out of thin air determined to crush liberalism, and that THEY are the reason our systems are crumbling? The failure of your ideology made them into a inevitability. asdf32 posted:
Politics are not morality theory. You can blame the rural middle class all the day long but that ain't gonna make them vote for you. Too take any perspective of what people "ought" to have done teaches you nothing. asdf32 posted:Surely instead of 'sticking it to the elite' with Brexit and Trump they could have gone for higher tax rates or any other actual policy instead. "If only they believed in liberalism harder..:" Please tell me your "actual policies", i would love to hear the rest of you ammunition after "raising taxes on the rich". Most dissatisfied voters are hoping to turn back time to the good old days where the economy wasn't constantly in the shitter, but no politician can really deliver on that kind of growth anymore. People believed in internationalism and globalism, and it failed. Now people are recognizing that failure, and turning to populist nationalism and protectionism, which will fail Nobody HAS a solution, which is why people are desperately turning to alternatives caps on caps on caps posted:the groups responsible for the death of Western liberalism and leftism. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Like does anyone believe all these magically uplifted people aren't going to be shoved right back into the poo poo at the first opportunity?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Now people are recognizing that failure, and turning to populist nationalism and protectionism, which will fail Nobody HAS a solution, which is why people are desperately turning to alternatives Why is protectionism destined to fail? It may not be perfect but it was the normal way of doing business for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Like does anyone believe all these magically uplifted people aren't going to be shoved right back into the poo poo at the first opportunity? That is partly why China is really trying to resist privatizing/shutting down its state owned companies. It isn't any type of compassion but they know if they shut them down there are going to be hundreds of thousands/millions of pissed off people on the streets and it will completely decimate entire regions. We will see how long it lasts. readingatwork posted:Why is protectionism destined to fail? It may not be perfect but it was the normal way of doing business for centuries. Admittedly there are trade off with protectionism as well, and it does led to a lack of competition. You could probably find some type of middle ground, and made up the different with infrastructure and domestic spending. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
I love how not wanting third cousins losing their jobs due to their plant being moved to Indonesia is now racist. Supporting family is apparently a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Like does anyone believe all these magically uplifted people aren't going to be shoved right back into the poo poo at the first opportunity? It didn't happen to Japan, or Korea. Human capital and infrastructure are real things worth money and they don't disappear which is how every rich country maintains high wages. Crowsbeak posted:I love how not wanting third cousins losing their jobs due to their plant being moved to Indonesia is now racist. Supporting family is apparently a bad thing. Being consistently amoral is a useful frame of reference but means applying it to the rich and the political elites above you as well. Not drawing an arbitrary line that happens to be right underneath you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Why is protectionism destined to fail? It may not be perfect but it was the normal way of doing business for centuries. Protectionism is a good tool for autonomy, sovereign rule over corporate rule and self sufficiency, but it will not bring a massive growth and jobs and prosperity many voters are hoping for. The collapse of the EU for example will not materialize into some kind of massive boost for the constituent countries, nor will leading NAFTA be worth the exchange. Off course the rural areas status could stand to benefit, and bring back some of the previously local manufacturing industry, but it will not make up for the GDP loss. Most voters who have grown accustomed to a passive democracy want a technocrat that delivers the goods of 2% annual growth and >5% unemployment, which does not exist anymore. Trump has half of the idea right, that the current establishment is unable to deliver the goods, but any promise he has made to deliver the same will ultimately falter. It's a rough road ahead no matter where you drive basically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I believe their complaint is that it was suppose to be a rising tide lift all boats deal, but they're just got pulled down. Really, I don't know if it is capitalism, globalization, or whatever that drove the last 100 years, it seems like machines doing stuff much better than humans did that to me; and now we're literally drowning. Accounting is a pretty great system, you only have to show what you can convince someone else; so acting like these numbers means jack poo poo is crazy to begin with. Like not paying the countries that contributed to our present because they don't have big enough guns. What does it mean when you say poverty? That people are provided for? is a peasant a peasant because he is hungry, or because he had no choice but to be hungry. Would there be no poor if all were fed and clothed? looking at numbers and things completely misses what economics describe. It is a social construct that describe choice. The western middle class is poorer in status in their society. the chinese are poorer in status than in their past also(unless you believe the communist parties apparatus are weaker now, despite arrests of thousands of rich and high ranking members). globally we are all weaker in status than our superiors. They might choose to maintain our subsidence , or they might decide uniting the world through war sounds better. whatever, how rich or poor you are is in your ability to contr these choices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Reminder about the uplifting of the third world from poverty by neoliberal globalization: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html Goalposts moved by World Bank: 1. Halving the proportion rather than the absolute number of people living on under a dollar a day. 2. Excluding developed countries from the comparison and thus increasing the effect of 1. 3. Moving the baseline back from 2000 to 1990 so that prior Chinese poverty reduction efforts would count. 4. Moving the dollar itself forward in time, allowing inflation to dilute the goal. Even with all these dilutions, if China isn't factored, the amount of people living on under that dollar a day is actually increasing, meaning that the promising statistics are carried by China alone. And what is China? Definitely not a liberalized, open trade country. Yes, trade has been its new source of wealth, but it's a very different kind of trade from what mainstream economists advocate. And again, on average, in the countries that have been following economist advice, absolute poverty has been and is currently increasing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The Marxist labor-capital framing is an antiquated and an ever more absurd over-simplification in a world currently dominated by populist movements dismantling many of the things you blame the elites for not providing. That's not some exclusively Marxist framing that is literally how mainstream economists look at GDP growth. There's a section of income that constitutes returns to labour and another that constitutes returns to capital. Discussing these different returns and how larger patterns like industrial relations or trade impact the returns to capital vs returns to labour is completetly standard and mainstream. Honestly, when you make replies like this it's so unintentionally revealing I can't help but cringe. Look, here's the results of a thirty second google search showing the Economist and the Financial Times using the exact same "labour-capital framing" that you apparently think is the exclusive domain of Marxist ideologues. You are free (and indeed welcome) to disagree with anything I've said by presenting contrasting information or by offering an alternative interpretation of whatever facts I've cited. But you're seemingly incapable of that. All you can do is (incorrectly) diagnos that since you don't agree with what I'm saying my ideas must be antiquated and old because surely nothing you believe could be wrong, never mind that you can't be bothered to marshal any specific arguments to defend your views. This discussion might be worth continuing if you at least offered interesting counter arguments but at this point you're literally just making (failed) appeals to authority. quote:Disingenuous is a leftist downplaying what that chart means to workers. Moving wealth from rich countries to poor countries across the globe is one of the most fundamentally difficult things to make happen. Liberalism was advertised as being able to do it and delivered. Peace is also difficult and liberalism brought competing powers into a single global framework that delivered peace without mutually assured destruction. If you think the environment is bad now watch what happens to climate change collaboration if this framework weakens. Honestly, why even bother typing up a reply if you're not including any actual arguments? You've made this assertin that China massively liberalized itself multiple times and even when I point out that this isn't accurate -- the one child policy being a really prominent example of a completely illiberal policy, the crackdown on Tianamen Square being another obvious one, the extremely tight regulation of capital markets and suppression of workers being a third. If you're going to actually argue China is a vindication of liberalism then cite the examples you want to use and defend those examples with some kind of actual argument. You just keep posting the same raw assertions again and again as though repeating the same trite none-sense enough times will somehow score you debate points, even though the substantive content of everyone one of your posts is the same, i.e. zero. quote:The last gasp of someone trying to downplay the economic development of peasants they don't care about : cite the environment as if economic growth of the first world middle class doesn't come with similar environmental consequences. But that's exactly the point I was making, which was apparently lost on you in your rush to type up this dumb ad hominem reply. The growth model you're defending is premised on infinite growth and has shown no capability to course correct even in the face of a species-threatening environmental crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Why is protectionism destined to fail? It may not be perfect but it was the normal way of doing business for centuries. One thing that comes to mind is the fact that many products these days (like electronics that use a lot of rare earth metals or whatever) require a bunch of materials that can't be produced domestically. Protectionism can also aggressively gently caress over nations that don't have some advantage in terms of natural resources or whatever. Granted, there are degrees of protectionism and I absolutely think the government should be strict with mandating reasonable labor standards in the countries our corporations do business with (in the sense of applying tariffs or something if those standards aren't met).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It didn't happen to Japan, or Korea. Do you honestly believe a significant number of developing nations are ever going to end up like Japan or South Korea? edit: Like, is the liberal expectation that the majority of currently developing nations will ultimately end up as developed/industrialized nations of this nature? Because that's kind of ridiculous on its face. The sort of global capitalism that is the current status quo relies heavily upon a bunch of countries having cheap labor. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Granted, there are degrees of protectionism and I absolutely think the government should be strict with mandating reasonable labor standards in the countries our corporations do business with (in the sense of applying tariffs or something if those standards aren't met). What do you mean by reasonable labor standards? Are you talking about 1st world occupational health and safety or wages? If it's just the former, there's still going to be a huge (if shrinking) wage differential. If it's both, then there's no functional difference between that and a tariff, except tariffs can at least theoretically get spent by the government on needed things. In any case, both of these policies would hurt the majority of the US poor because they will be forced to pay higher prices for goods and they won't see wage increases because they don't work in manufacturing. Should we burden the poor here with higher prices so that The poor elsewhere have better working conditions? I don't think there's an easy answer there. I think there's an easier case to be made for environmental regulations, just because the impacts are global. VitalSigns posted:It may not be the moral option, but if you give people a choice between allying with the business elites to hurt minorities, and allying with other business elites to hurt themselves, a lot of people are gonna choose the former. That's a false choice because most poor people will not benefit from protectionism, they'll just be worse off due to higher prices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Free trade is all about removing geographic and other boundaries to trade, which means more fossil fuels moving more stuff greater distances, and the WTO actively prosecuting against pro-local legislation. There's really compelling evidence that regardless of how you feel about free trade's effects so far, its disastrous and unsustainable for the environment. I'd highly recommend Naomi Klein's "This Changes Everything" for anyone looking to read more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:15
|
|