3 ms·
1b) I think i'd say that it is both path-dependent and also the simple lack of variation (as in any evolving system) produces poorer results with respect to lon
by darawk 11y ago
1b) I think i'd say that it is both path-dependent and also the simple lack of variation (as in any evolving system) produces poorer results with respect to long-term innovation and sustainability. If I had to venture a guess as to why this didn't happen with the west, i'd say it's because we were first. It was easy for us to transition into new markets because there were no established players already doing it better - making a shitty car is a great business if everyone else is riding horses.
2. Ya, that's fair. But I think it's a pretty huge caveat to "free trade is good" to have to say "free trade is good on the whole, but harms poor, low skilled workers in the absence of concomitant and independent wealth distribution reforms (which are, here at least, politically untenable)". And it's strange to me that Krugman who I think is generally considered leftist wouldn't address this seemingly obvious shortcoming.
- jimmytidey 11y agoOn point 2, it's worth noting the Corn Laws in UK, where the poor pushed for international trade in grain, because they wanted cheap bread. The rich owned farms, and wanted high grain prices, so pushed back against free trade. There is no 'default' distributional effect from free trade, it can go in any direction.