|
JeffersonClay posted: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. Wait. So now that we're talking about making companies treat foreign workers well we can't do it because it will hurt the US poor? I thought free trade was a charity designed to help Indonesian sweatshop laborers? Also is there any real evidence to suggest that the money people save in lower prices is greater than the money they loose due to decreased wages and benefits? Because I have yet to see any.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:It didn't happen to Japan, or Korea. Ytlaya posted:Do you honestly believe a significant number of developing nations are ever going to end up like Japan or South Korea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
cheese posted:The end goal of globalization is to open up all markets to western goods, gain access to cheap raw material and to fully neutralize the high wage labor of western workers. Anything else is just incidental. No one needs to look further than the IMF to see proof of this. First, we'll in-debt your nation-state at the first chance we get (dictators, populist and corrupt governments in general are great for this). Secondly, we'll bail you out but only if you agree to policy demands that will make it impossible for your economy to recover or you to ever meaningfully pay us back putting you in a debt-spiral. Finally, we will graciously buy whatever assets or resources that still reside in your country at a bargain price point that you will have no recourse but to accept as you're drowning in interest payments from paying back our loans. Try to resist and we'll implode your banking sector/currency exchange rate and make your people starve as food stops coming in and cars run out of gas. It's... Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Do you honestly believe a significant number of developing nations are ever going to end up like Japan or South Korea? No I don't think China is exactly going to turn into either though again, a lot of people get ahead of themselves judging China. Economically they're roughly where Korea was under military dictatorship in the 80's. But no they're not exactly on that path politically. In terms of economics its not ridiculous at all. The biggest trading partners of first world countries are other first world countries (for USA its Canada). The notion that trade needs a poor partner is completely false and counter to how most trade actually operates (and quick reminder that comparative advantage has nothing to do with wealth disparity). Or the idea that companies will leave china and make them poor again if they get too expensive is roughly the like predicting the same thing about switzerland, or NYC, which is to say that it's pretty dumb (particularly considering China's size).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. Not necessarily 1st world, but I'm mostly talking about significantly better occupational health/safety, yes. Wages depend upon cost of living in the countries in question, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to expect some developing nation to pay the equivalent of US minimum wage when converted to their currency, but I think that determining a reasonable wage in each relevant country (and what is unacceptably low) isn't exactly an impossible task. I think you're heavily overestimating how much increased labor costs in some countries would impact the poor in the US. When you take into account that 1. labor is only a larger portion of cost for certain products 2. not all products are coming from the sort of countries with poor labor standards and 3. probably a majority of the money poor people have to pay is unrelated to the sort of consumer products it would impact (like rent, car expenses, health insurance, etc), I think it's not at all some obvious thing that increased labor standards in developing nations would have some terrible impact on the poor in the US. (Edit: Also, in a reasonable world the poor would be sufficiently supported by the government in a nation like the US, so marginally increased costs wouldn't be an issue. It would only potentially be an issue now because we don't give nearly enough assistance to the poor.) Honestly, I agree that improved labor standards in developing countries wouldn't help the poor in the US much - it's not like those jobs would come back to the US in most cases. But I also find it highly doubtful that allowing near-slavery in developing countries is somehow an unchangeable reality and that anything better will destroy the first-world poor. If anything, expecting reasonable standards should be a basic moral issue. edit2: To be honest the entire argument that increasing expected labor standards in the countries we trade with is bad because it might potentially increase the burden on the first-world poor is sort of viscerally disgusting, especially in light of the fact that a country like the US would have no problem providing for its poor if it really wanted to. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Helsing posted: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. Yeah this is getting ridiculous as you transparently repeat the thing you criticize me for like not making an argument and posting the same raw assertions. That 'capital' and 'labor' are categories that can be measured and are words that other people use doesn't make your framing of 'battle between labour and capital' useful. Which is of course the language I was referring to and, I will just repeat it because you didn't make an argument, a vast oversimplification given the actual realities of current events. The Tea Party wasn't either one. Nor did I say china 'massively liberalized' when I said china liberalized to 'varying degrees' elsewhere which shows up as better labor rights or for example introduction of some democratic elections at the local level. I'd also argue that economic empowerment forces the government to be more accountable and more responsive that it otherwise would be (or was pre-reform). It's not premised on infinite growth (literally a myth). Citing climate change just highlights the emptiness or naivete of where you stand. Global trade is the main leverage encouraging countries to cooperate to the extent they currently are (imagine china and the US without it). In theory a less globalized world can only replace that with pure good will (good luck with that) but back in real life the right wing forces lining up to actually replace the existing liberal global order are openly hostile to environmental issues and most everything else that you [actually both of us] support as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There isn't an excuse I can think of yet for what the American middle class has done to itself. The middle class doesn't determine global economic trends on the political level at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Wait. So now that we're talking about making companies treat foreign workers well we can't do it because it will hurt the US poor? I thought free trade was a charity designed to help Indonesian sweatshop laborers? Right? So, so revealing. Liberals will call the American poor entitled racists all day long and lecture them that they have enough stuff and it's time for Bangladeshi workers to get their jobs. But when you try to apply some consistency to their beliefs and ask why we don't ensure those Bangladeshis have safe working conditions and a living wage suddenly "oh no we can't do that, the American poor are the salt of the earth and they deserve cheaper stuff." It's so obvious that the end goal of capitalists is the destruction of the global middle class and a slave economy servicing the top 1%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Do you honestly believe a significant number of developing nations are ever going to end up like Japan or South Korea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Wait. So now that we're talking about making companies treat foreign workers well we can't do it because it will hurt the US poor? I thought free trade was a charity designed to help Indonesian sweatshop laborers? Free trade is good because it helps the american poor by giving them access to cheaper goods. Things that get in the way of free trade are going to hurt the poor via price increases. Indonesian sweatshop laborers benefit as well, insofar as sweatshop labor is preferable to subsistence farming or starvation. quote:Also is there any real evidence to suggest that the money people save in lower prices is greater than the money they loose due to decreased wages and benefits? Because I have yet to see any. Yes there's a strong consensus among academic economists that the gains outweigh the losses. Ytlaya posted:Not necessarily 1st world, but I'm mostly talking about significantly better occupational health/safety, yes. Wages depend upon cost of living in the countries in question, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to expect some developing nation to pay the equivalent of US minimum wage when converted to their currency, but I think that determining a reasonable wage in each relevant country (and what is unacceptably low) isn't exactly an impossible task. I don't think labor and environmental standards would be bad to include in trade agreements, I just want to recognize they would have a cost-- one that might be worth paying for with higher prices. Would these standards actually cause the industrializing countries to adopt those standards more quickly? Might be worth it. Would the standards just cause companies to move back to fully industrialized countries and raise prices? The poor, both 3rd world and western, would not benefit from that. quote:I think you're heavily overestimating how much increased labor costs in some countries would impact the poor in the US. When you take into account that 1. labor is only a larger portion of cost for certain products 2. not all products are coming from the sort of countries with poor labor standards and 3. probably a majority of the money poor people have to pay is unrelated to the sort of consumer products it would impact (like rent, car expenses, health insurance, etc), I think it's not at all some obvious thing that increased labor standards in developing nations would have some terrible impact on the poor in the US. (Edit: Also, in a reasonable world the poor would be sufficiently supported by the government in a nation like the US, so marginally increased costs wouldn't be an issue. It would only potentially be an issue now because we don't give nearly enough assistance to the poor.) Rent is related to construction which is affected by the price of construction materials. Health insurance is related to the price of medical devices and supplies. Car expenses are related to the cost of cars and parts. I agree with you the solution here is for the US government to take better care of the poor. quote:edit2: To be honest the entire argument that increasing expected labor standards in the countries we trade with is bad because it might potentially increase the burden on the first-world poor is sort of viscerally disgusting, especially in light of the fact that a country like the US would have no problem providing for its poor if it really wanted to. Is it any more disgusting than the argument we should help US manufacturing workers by imposing tariffs that will force the poor in the US to pay more for goods and drive 3rd world workers into subsistence agriculture or simply starvation ? Our safety net is bad, and theirs is far worse. Protectionism would exacerbate both problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
YOU. JUST. NEED. TO. REDISTRIBUTE. THE. WEALTH. SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:YOU. JUST. NEED. TO. REDISTRIBUTE. THE. WEALTH. Yes exactly. Rather than fretting about islam and closing borders the first world middle class could do exactly this and solve their problems without screwing anyone except the rich who can handle it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes there's a strong consensus among academic economists that the gains outweigh the losses. You've asserted this several times but I have yet to see you cite any real studies. At best you'll point to a poll that says "economists agree free trade good", which is probably true, but this isn't the same as an actual study showing "While free trade drives down wages X%, people save Y% in goods and services". Having the later is important since it lets me look at the data and determine if the economist in question is blowing smoke up our asses. quote:Our safety net is bad, and theirs is far worse. Protectionism would exacerbate both problems. OK I'm going to make you explain this one. How does protectionism make the safety net worse? If anything the opposite is true in that free trade let's capital move wherever it pleases in order to avoid paying it's fair share in wages and taxes. EDIT: ISeeCuckedPeople posted:YOU. JUST. NEED. TO. REDISTRIBUTE. THE. WEALTH. Good luck getting the That aside, even IF you can get some redistribution done you still have the issue of labor being crippled by this arrangement. You MIGHT have something somewhat tenable in the long term if you truly opened up all borders and let workers move, work, and unionize across nations, thus allowing individuals to move to where the jobs and benefits are best. However that solution itself has problems (the wealthy still have too much bargaining power and long term communities will no longer exist), and for many very obvious reasons it's not going to happen anyways (xenophobia, culture clash, the wealthy not wanting international unions, etc). readingatwork fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes there's a strong consensus among academic economists that the gains outweigh the losses. For the economy overall yes. But we all know the overall economy is skewed by a small minority absorbing a majority of growth. For the average guy it's not so clear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That's a false choice because most poor people will not benefit from protectionism, they'll just be worse off due to higher prices. Turns out liberalism doesn't need to hurt "most" poor people, just enough in key regions to ally with religious nuts, racists, fascists, and other business interests to overthrow your liberal world order. Whoops! caps on caps on caps posted: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. Cool story, but I think you'll find that it's the racists and nationalists on the right tearing down your precious free trade right now, and not the left that you've been destroying since the 70s. Ruh roh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
"we could not care less if tens of millions of black and yellow people starve to death, at least without trade there is less capitalism" literally this thread and lol the idea that now suddenly IMF investments have defeated poverty. How clueless can you be? readingatwork posted:Why is protectionism destined to fail? It may not be perfect but it was the normal way of doing business for centuries. Yes and exactly during that time there was no economic growth (for literally thousands of years) and one third of your country might suddenly die because there's too much or too little rain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Yes and exactly during that time there was no economic growth (for literally thousands of years) and one third of your country might suddenly die because there's too much or too little rain. Please qualify this statement, unless you're just a lovely troll. Unless you draw full equivalence between fur-clad tribespeople and Egypt (literally a vast kingdom of immeasurable wealth, literally several thousand years ago) this statement is complete nonsense. You should also learn the meaning of the word "literally" sometime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Yes and exactly during that time there was no economic growth (for literally thousands of years) and one third of your country might suddenly die because there's too much or too little rain. I guess the iron age man was economically no better off than the stone age man. An opinion held by a moron with no conception of history or economics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Yes and exactly during that time there was no economic growth (for literally thousands of years) and one third of your country might suddenly die because there's too much or too little rain. If you're going to post nonsense can't you at least give us the courtesy of pretending that you're operating on some kind of rational basis?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Please qualify this statement, unless you're just a lovely troll. Unless you draw full equivalence between fur-clad tribespeople and Egypt (literally a vast kingdom of immeasurable wealth, literally several thousand years ago) this statement is complete nonsense. You should also learn the meaning of the word "literally" sometime. just read Piketty I guess.   Countries of wealth were always also countries of active trade. Nevertheless, for the vast majority of human existence, economic growth, both globally and locally, was lower than 1% or non-existent. At the same time, inequality was much higher than virtually anywhere today, also for countries which were comparably wealthy (aka your example of Egypt). Countries with active trade, on the other hand, were always also associated with higher social mobility because of two things. First: opportunities outside hereditary or caste-like instutitions and second, foreign influences and opportunities. Successful trade in many goods necessitates a relative flexible and adaptible economy (see Venice for example). The extend of exploitive institutions, which enables and propagates both poverty and inequality, is closely associated with protectionism (or trade which is only open to state actors for example oil). On the other side, countries regressing into political and economic isolation are consistently regressing on measures of wealth, poverty and institutional inclusivity, even today. To be sure, these things are interrelated (that is, they are determined simultaneously) and so correlation does not equal causation, even if the latter surely exists. See Acemoglu/Robinson for more on this. For more development from 1820 onwards, please refer to Bourguignon and Morrisson (2002) – Inequality Among World Citizens: 1820–1992. In American Economic Review, 92, 4, 727–744. Furthermore Chen and Ravallion (2010) – The Developing World is Poorer than We Thought, But No Less Successful in the Fight Against Poverty. In The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 4, 1577–1625.  The reason why trade specifically seems to be important (and not just, let's say industrial technology), is that the four factors of institutions, productions, trade and poverty are correlated even despite global influences like technology. So for example, the most successful developing countries are those which participate in trade, whereas the least succesful countries are those which do not. Notably, foreign aid is definitly not the determining factor, as here there is no relation between poverty reduction and foreign aid. Trade does not mean free trade, nor does it mean unfettered capitalism. But less exploitative institutions are a key factor, and relatively free economic opportunities are the primary association with these. sources Frankel, Jeffrey A., and David Romer. "Does trade cause growth?." American economic review (1999): 379-399. Rodrik, Dani, Arvind Subramanian, and Francesco Trebbi. "Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development." Journal of economic growth 9.2 (2004): 131-165. Dollar, David, and Aart Kraay. "Growth is Good for the Poor." Journal of economic growth 7.3 (2002): 195-225.   Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The middle class doesn't determine global economic trends on the political level at all. Brexit
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The middle class doesn't determine global economic trends on the political level at all. Uh, Reagan? Thatcher? Nixon? TRUMP????? EDIT: Like sure, but only if you pretend that economic ideas manifest into politics from the aether. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Brexit A decision that only existed because the political class put it in front of people in the first place in some weird attempt to give the EU public legitimacy. Had they known that the people might choose to leave the vote would have happened. So it's not the greatest example. Plus you can argue that the reason brexit won was because people were frustrated with their lack of power in global affairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:A decision that only existed because the political class put it in front of people in the first place in some weird attempt to give the EU public legitimacy. Had they known that the people might choose to leave the vote would have happened. So it's not the greatest example. It's a perfect example because voters dictated global political trends. The thing someone said they can't do. And it's not an isolated example at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Uh, Reagan? Thatcher? Nixon? TRUMP????? The power of the middle class isn't zero but it's not exactly high either. Most economic policies happen in spite of public opinion rather than because of it. For example, no one making under 6 figures was clamoring for NAFTA, but it happened anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Speaking of NAFTA, the poorest households actually benefit the most from NAFTA and other free trade agreements with poorer countries because they disproportionately consume cheap, imported goods. Consequently, protectionist trade policies, e.g. Trump's border adjustment tax proposal, hurt poor families the most. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.1a1e03ef8288 Jeff Guo paraphrasing UC Davis professor Kathryn Russ posted:Families at the bottom of the income ladder could pay 5 to 8 percent of their incomes as a result of increased prices from the Republican proposal, according to new calculations from Katheryn Russ, an associate professor of economics at the University of California, Davis. Middle-class families would pay between $700 to $1,000 a year, or about 1.3 to 2 percent of their incomes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Speaking of NAFTA, the poorest households actually benefit the most from NAFTA and other free trade agreements with poorer countries because they disproportionately consume cheap, imported goods. Consequently, protectionist trade policies, e.g. Trump's border adjustment tax proposal, hurt poor families the most. So we've decimated unions and the middle class and made the rich wealthier than they've ever been so the poor can save 8% a year? Also if Trump's plan actually brings back manufacturing how much will these people gain in increased wages? I never see that part of the equation dealt with. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah this is getting ridiculous as you transparently repeat the thing you criticize me for like not making an argument and posting the same raw assertions. I'm burned out after you prodded me to explain myself at length, with plenty of examples, and you couldn't be bothered to type up an even cursory response. You constantly demand extensive explanations for arguments you disagree with but they never seem to make any difference. And I don't mean that in some selfish "oh why can't you see my brilliance and be instantly convinced by what I argue!" kind of way. But I mean I can type out any number of contrary examples or even cite academic studies and they make literally no change in your posting, you don't even change your arguments to respond to new evidence. You plod along making the exact same arguments as though nothing had ever happened. So if you want to walk away from this concluding I'm really guilty of what I'm accusing you of doing I think there's probably literally nothing I could say to change your mind. quote:That 'capital' and 'labor' are categories that can be measured and are words that other people use doesn't make your framing of 'battle between labour and capital' useful. Which is of course the language I was referring to and, I will just repeat it because you didn't make an argument, a vast oversimplification given the actual realities of current events. The Tea Party wasn't either one. See this is exhibit A. You obviously didn't even bother to click on those hyper links. The subtitle of the Economist article I linked literally reads "All around the world, labour is losing out to capital". Framing labour and capital as in competition with each other for a limited pool of income is a completely standard and widely used framework. The financial times article I linked to is even more explicit here, with the author writing early in the article: " In the perpetual struggle between labour and capital, it is no secret which side has the upper hand. The share of the national income that goes to wages has been in decline in the developed world since the 1980s, and precipitously so over the past 15 years." The idea of a conflict between labour and capital, which is reflected in elections, industrial actions like strikes, protests etc. is a widely used, intuitive and self evidently useful way of understanding how income gets distributed. The fact you cannot even read the term "labour vs capital" without thinking it must be some kind of obscure "Marxist" ideology that you're instantly convinced no one respectable would ever use just dispalys how totally out of touch you apparently are. quote:Nor did I say china 'massively liberalized' when I said china liberalized to 'varying degrees' elsewhere which shows up as better labor rights or for example introduction of some democratic elections at the local level. I'd also argue that economic empowerment forces the government to be more accountable and more responsive that it otherwise would be (or was pre-reform). Ok. So to be clear your example of China's great liberal reforms are free elections and strong worker safety provisions? Really? quote:It's not premised on infinite growth (literally a myth). Citing climate change just highlights the emptiness or naivete of where you stand. Global trade is the main leverage encouraging countries to cooperate to the extent they currently are (imagine china and the US without it). In theory a less globalized world can only replace that with pure good will (good luck with that) but back in real life the right wing forces lining up to actually replace the existing liberal global order are openly hostile to environmental issues and most everything else that you [actually both of us] support as well. Again, what you're seemingly missing here is nothing I've said has ever implied that the greater flow of goods and services between countries is bad or needs to be starkly reversed. What you insist on ignoring is the relationship between large political investors (the so called "monied interests") and political outcomes, especially in the West. That is the barrier to taking action on climate change. It happens to be the case that this relationship between money and political outcomes can't be neatly separated from the specific way "globalization" has been implemented. These monied interests also play a direct and continual role in preventing the kind of wealth redistribution that you seem to agree would be the logical and least destructive way of replying to the growing backlash we're seeing in the west. Critiquing this relationship or suggesting fundamental reforms need to be undertaken doesn't mean advocating for the abolition of international trade. It certainly does mean implementing policies that would re-balance the way international trade and finance are conducted: in particular, targeting the numerous policies that are designed not to facilitate trade but rather to favour particular domestic interest groups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Speaking of NAFTA, the poorest households actually benefit the most from NAFTA and other free trade agreements with poorer countries because they disproportionately consume cheap, imported goods. Consequently, protectionist trade policies, e.g. Trump's border adjustment tax proposal, hurt poor families the most. I'm sure being able to buy cheaper smartphones, TV's and baby-gap t-shirts is a huge comfort to the lower income strata working in uncertain 8$ an hour employments while drowning in debt, increasing property costs and healthcare they could never afford. No way is this just not patchwork on a completely unsustainable situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:"we could not care less if tens of millions of black and yellow people starve to death, at least without trade there is less capitalism" Hey that's how it works people tend to care more for their fellow countrymen who live in places they have been then for someone thousands of miles away. Calling them racist for looking out for their relatives or friends interests doesn't make them want to support you wanting to destroy their livelihoods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
why do people keep arguing with the guy who has stated that some of his opinions on economics come from RTS videogames
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Speaking of NAFTA, the poorest households actually benefit the most from NAFTA and other free trade agreements with poorer countries because they disproportionately consume cheap, imported goods. Consequently, protectionist trade policies, e.g. Trump's border adjustment tax proposal, hurt poor families the most. This completely ignores the larger political economic differences between the first thirty or forty years of post-war history vs. the contemporary "globalized" period since the 1980s. Contemporary globalization creates a situation where labour exercises less political influence at the national level, and where national governments in general are generally restrained from implementing the kinds of social democratic and pro-labour policies that helped maintain labour's share of income growth between the 1950s and 1980s. Globalization may have brought cheaper imports but it also fundamentally changes the political balance forces within each country and this in turn influences how income is distributed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Zikan posted:why do people keep arguing with the guy who has stated that some of his opinions on economics come from RTS videogames Oh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:So we've decimated unions and the middle class and made the rich wealthier than they've ever been so the poor can save 8% a year? Trump's plan will not bring back manufacturing employment because the decline in manufacturing employment is due largely to technological progress, not trade. If U.S. manufacturing trade had been balanced over the last 25 years (i.e. no trade deficits), U.S. manufacturing employment would be in almost exactly the same state as it is today. Source: Kehoe, Ruhl, and Steinberg, Journal of Political Economy, forthcoming. Leaving that aside, the problem with public discourse about trade is that the gains (more purchasing power) are enormous but widely dispersed and largely invisible in day-to-day life, while the losses (unemployment) are small in the aggregate but concentrated and highly visible. Nobody is going to protest or whatever over a 20% jump in avocado prices, but the aggregate welfare losses from that price change along would be huge. Edit: To respond to Helsing, I think that technological progress, not trade, is also largely responsible for job polarization, inequality, etc. as well as manufacturing job losses. Union membership and labor's share of GDP, for example, both started declining in the 1960s or earlier, well before the process of globalization took off.* But that is a topic for the next paper. * Incidentally, labor productivity in manufacturing has been growing several percentage points per year faster than labor productivity in the rest of the economy since 1960 as well. Oakland Martini fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'm sure being able to buy cheaper smartphones, TV's and baby-gap t-shirts is a huge comfort to the lower income strata working in uncertain 8$ an hour employments while drowning in debt, increasing property costs and healthcare they could never afford. No way is this just not patchwork on a completely unsustainable situation. Come on dude, this isn't just tvs it's also diapers refrigerators and cars, things people can't exactly skip. And I would expect healthcare and rent probably have little to do with global trade anyway, so it's not like protectionism is going to help there
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Come on dude, this isn't just tvs it's also diapers refrigerators and cars, things people can't exactly skip. And I would expect healthcare and rent probably have little to do with global trade anyway, so it's not like protectionism is going to help there Except that things were better under protectionism in several of those regards. You just don't seem to get why the loss of political bargaining power actually matters. It's not happenstance that lower-income's aren't keeping pace with the costs of essential needs anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:"we could not care less if tens of millions of black and yellow people starve to death, at least without trade there is less capitalism" Your post fail to take into account why the the ones currently voting for populists should stop doing so. If your answer is that trade helps nations develop and is "morally" good, then there are a million better things to do. People who give the homeless money while NIMBYING any construction of homeless shelters in their area do not really have any moral superiority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Except that things were better under protectionism in several of those regards. You just don't seem to get why the loss of political bargaining power actually matters. It's not happenstance that lower-income's aren't keeping pace with the costs of essential needs anymore. Okay let me see if I understand the argument. You are saying that because liberalization has undermined labour's bargaining power, it has indirectly led to increases in the cost of healthcare and housing by preventing the implementation of policies that could have ameliorated the problem, correct?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Kekekela posted: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. There is a cross over point where nuclear makes sense for containerships. Things were getting close enough in 08 before the crash, that shipyards had been bid out, the ports for the service had ok-ed berthing nuclear vessels, etc. Doesn't matter now, everything is going to implode in shipping anyway. There is a massive amount of carrier overcapacity. If there is a down turn because of protectionism, I think we'll lose multiple lines at this point. The failure (hanjin), aquisitions of failures (eg. Hapag getting CSAV), and mergers (eg. Hapag and UASC) that are consequence of this oversupply are already happening. A sudden drop in demand could be system breaking. A lot of things would be hosed suddenly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Squalid posted:Okay let me see if I understand the argument. You are saying that because liberalization has undermined labour's bargaining power, it has indirectly led to increases in the cost of healthcare and housing by preventing the implementation of policies that could have ameliorated the problem, correct? Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:29
|
|