5 ms·

That's a complete and blatant misrepresentation of what I am saying. Empirically, countries that have not put all of their eggs in the proverbial free trade ba

by chroem- 11y ago

That's a complete and blatant misrepresentation of what I am saying. Empirically, countries that have not put all of their eggs in the proverbial free trade basket have been much more prosperous than those that have. You can't deny that.

cba9 11y ago
> ...all of the countries which have done extremely well (China, Brazil) have protectionist economies while the countries that have stagnated or suffered (US, EU) have fervently implemented free trade policies....Empirically, countries that have not put all of their eggs in the proverbial free trade basket have been much more prosperous than those that have. Are you saying that Brazil and China are wealthier than the US and EU? I also think that this is a curious way to describe China's recent history in going from Mao to Deng...
- chroem- 11y ago
  The article is about how different countries and demographics have fared over the last few decades of globalization. Countries like Brazil and China have experienced massive relative increases in wealth while other wealthier countries (who also happen to firmly be on the free trade bandwaggon) have stagnated or declined.
  - cba9 11y ago
    So your point is that capitalist countries became much wealthier and they also did this much earlier than protectionist countries did, and this is somehow a bad thing about free trade?
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Let me state the question more clearly: according to your theory, why can't we trade-barrier our way to prosperity within a country as well as between countries? I do agree with you that developing nations (e.g. China, India, Brazil) doing catch-up growth have grown faster than frontier nations (USA, Japan) that can't do catch-up growth. I would be very wary of attributing this to protectionism.
- wfo 11y ago
  I don't think anyone believes protectionism is good for EVERYONE, that's a straw man that sounds as ridiculous as you've made it sound. Rather, protectionism is good for the countries that apply it. And in particular for certain populations in those countries. Wealthy capitalists are almost always best served by unfettered free trade (if there are no limits on what the wealthy can do with their wealth, the wealthy benefit, surprising no one). Middle-class or working-class people are far better served by protectionism. If California tech companies insisted on only California law firms to take them public then yes it would be better for California than having them send all their money out of state to New York.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    Could you clarify what you mean when you say it's better for California? I live in California. Is it better for me?
    - SamReidHughes 11y ago
      I think I'll skip forward and answer the question for you, because the meaning of "better for California" is besides the point. What happens if California tech companies are restricted to using only California law firms to take their company public? CA tech companies currently choose New York law firms sometimes. Now they'll have to choose CA law firms. In the short run, this means they'll have to pay more, or sacrifice timeliness or quality of legal work, or not IPO at all. In the long run, more law firms will be created to meet demand -- if it's still around. The short-term result is: CA tech companies IPO later or not at all, or they pay more to do it. Existing CA law firms, ready to do IPO work, make more money -- given the time-sensitivity of the demand, they make a lot more money. More CA law students decide to specialize in stuff that would push them towards IPO work. The quality of the legal work done is, overall, not as good as what you could get in New York. More effort is spent resolving disputes that arise from legal mistakes, and IPO prices aren't as high as companies could get them because law firms entering the IPO business take longer as they learn how to do IPOs. Companies' product stagnates because they have to put off investments. Employees with options are unable to sell their stock as soon. The long-term result is: You now have IPO legal expertise in CA and New York. Because their respective markets are smaller, there is less specialization and the quality of the legal work is lower than it would otherwise be. Gluts and shortages as the demand for IPO legal work are experienced more severely, with more time spent idle and more people in the business of being a lawyer, instead of doing other things that are useful. The technology industry is smaller, because its companies raised less in IPOs, and because some of its companies couldn't keep up with out-of-state competitors by growing in a timely manner. Some lawyers are wealthier. So, as a lowly Californian, for me: 1. The price and quality of available IPO legal expertise is worsened. 2. More people will be doing legal work instead of other productive activities, which means the price of other goods and services is higher 3. The rate of technological improvement (in areas related to the CA tech industry) will be lower, and greater proportion of the world's technology industry will be out-of-state. Who benefits: Partners at some law firms, at a certain point in time.
derriz 11y ago
I think you can, easily. The most globalized countries are nearly all rich - see the KOF ranking for example. Or compare the top buckets in any economic freedom ranking (e.g http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking ) with those in the bottom. Or in terms of pure exports per capita the picture is the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_p...

by chroem- 11y ago

cba9 11y ago

> ...all of the countries which have done extremely well (China, Brazil) have protectionist economies while the countries that have stagnated or suffered (US, EU) have fervently implemented free trade policies....Empirically, countries that have not put all of their eggs in the proverbial free trade basket have been much more prosperous than those that have. Are you saying that Brazil and China are wealthier than the US and EU? I also think that this is a curious way to describe China's recent history in going from Mao to Deng...

chroem- 11y ago
The article is about how different countries and demographics have fared over the last few decades of globalization. Countries like Brazil and China have experienced massive relative increases in wealth while other wealthier countries (who also happen to firmly be on the free trade bandwaggon) have stagnated or declined.
- cba9 11y ago
  So your point is that capitalist countries became much wealthier and they also did this much earlier than protectionist countries did, and this is somehow a bad thing about free trade?

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Let me state the question more clearly: according to your theory, why can't we trade-barrier our way to prosperity within a country as well as between countries? I do agree with you that developing nations (e.g. China, India, Brazil) doing catch-up growth have grown faster than frontier nations (USA, Japan) that can't do catch-up growth. I would be very wary of attributing this to protectionism.

wfo 11y ago
I don't think anyone believes protectionism is good for EVERYONE, that's a straw man that sounds as ridiculous as you've made it sound. Rather, protectionism is good for the countries that apply it. And in particular for certain populations in those countries. Wealthy capitalists are almost always best served by unfettered free trade (if there are no limits on what the wealthy can do with their wealth, the wealthy benefit, surprising no one). Middle-class or working-class people are far better served by protectionism. If California tech companies insisted on only California law firms to take them public then yes it would be better for California than having them send all their money out of state to New York.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  Could you clarify what you mean when you say it's better for California? I live in California. Is it better for me?
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    I think I'll skip forward and answer the question for you, because the meaning of "better for California" is besides the point. What happens if California tech companies are restricted to using only California law firms to take their company public? CA tech companies currently choose New York law firms sometimes. Now they'll have to choose CA law firms. In the short run, this means they'll have to pay more, or sacrifice timeliness or quality of legal work, or not IPO at all. In the long run, more law firms will be created to meet demand -- if it's still around. The short-term result is: CA tech companies IPO later or not at all, or they pay more to do it. Existing CA law firms, ready to do IPO work, make more money -- given the time-sensitivity of the demand, they make a lot more money. More CA law students decide to specialize in stuff that would push them towards IPO work. The quality of the legal work done is, overall, not as good as what you could get in New York. More effort is spent resolving disputes that arise from legal mistakes, and IPO prices aren't as high as companies could get them because law firms entering the IPO business take longer as they learn how to do IPOs. Companies' product stagnates because they have to put off investments. Employees with options are unable to sell their stock as soon. The long-term result is: You now have IPO legal expertise in CA and New York. Because their respective markets are smaller, there is less specialization and the quality of the legal work is lower than it would otherwise be. Gluts and shortages as the demand for IPO legal work are experienced more severely, with more time spent idle and more people in the business of being a lawyer, instead of doing other things that are useful. The technology industry is smaller, because its companies raised less in IPOs, and because some of its companies couldn't keep up with out-of-state competitors by growing in a timely manner. Some lawyers are wealthier. So, as a lowly Californian, for me: 1. The price and quality of available IPO legal expertise is worsened. 2. More people will be doing legal work instead of other productive activities, which means the price of other goods and services is higher 3. The rate of technological improvement (in areas related to the CA tech industry) will be lower, and greater proportion of the world's technology industry will be out-of-state. Who benefits: Partners at some law firms, at a certain point in time.

derriz 11y ago

I think you can, easily. The most globalized countries are nearly all rich - see the KOF ranking for example. Or compare the top buckets in any economic freedom ranking (e.g http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking ) with those in the bottom. Or in terms of pure exports per capita the picture is the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_p...