3 ms·

On one podcast I was listening too they held a survey asking people whether trade deals were "good", "bad", "I don't know", "I think it's complicated". When fo

by iaw 10y ago

On one podcast I was listening too they held a survey asking people whether trade deals were "good", "bad", "I don't know", "I think it's complicated". When following up, neither the "good" nor "bad" responders could answer questions about how trade deals worked (whereas the other categories had a better grasp). Trade deals are hard, I believe one of the reasons we have been so successful at finding private tax evaders was in the same trade deal that killed Detroit.

CamperBob2 10y ago
Trade deals are hard, I believe one of the reasons we have been so successful at finding private tax evaders was in the same trade deal that killed Detroit. Can you elaborate on that? What killed Detroit wasn't a trade deal, except to the extent that we allowed Japan to sell autos here at all. What killed Detroit was a self-administered one-two punch: incompetent executives and engineers who designed awful cars that nobody wanted to buy, and unions who ganged up on their employers to demand outrageous compensation for building those cars.
- iaw 10y ago
  > What killed Detroit wasn't a trade deal, except to the extent that we allowed Japan to sell autos here at all. I'm referring to what killed Detroit the city, and it's jobs, not what killed the automakers. A famous quote regarding NAFTA [1] from Ross Perot was abouta "giant sucking sound" [2] the jobs would make as they flowed to Mexico because of lower wages and healthcare expenses. Looking it up I can't find any details on NAFTA helping catch tax evaders so I must be thinking of a different international arrangement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    Detroit was already pretty much toast by the time Perot ran.
hackerboos 10y ago
You earmark a portion of the extra money made via exports or imports and use that to retrain/employ workers who have lost their jobs.
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  That's the theory, but I worry that the practice could be different. Are people really that fungible? I have a feeling that if you ask a 50-year-old auto manufacturing specialist to start again (at the bottom) in a different industry and a different city, the experience would break him.

by iaw 10y ago

CamperBob2 10y ago

Trade deals are hard, I believe one of the reasons we have been so successful at finding private tax evaders was in the same trade deal that killed Detroit. Can you elaborate on that? What killed Detroit wasn't a trade deal, except to the extent that we allowed Japan to sell autos here at all. What killed Detroit was a self-administered one-two punch: incompetent executives and engineers who designed awful cars that nobody wanted to buy, and unions who ganged up on their employers to demand outrageous compensation for building those cars.

iaw 10y ago
> What killed Detroit wasn't a trade deal, except to the extent that we allowed Japan to sell autos here at all. I'm referring to what killed Detroit the city, and it's jobs, not what killed the automakers. A famous quote regarding NAFTA [1] from Ross Perot was abouta "giant sucking sound" [2] the jobs would make as they flowed to Mexico because of lower wages and healthcare expenses. Looking it up I can't find any details on NAFTA helping catch tax evaders so I must be thinking of a different international arrangement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Detroit was already pretty much toast by the time Perot ran.

hackerboos 10y ago

You earmark a portion of the extra money made via exports or imports and use that to retrain/employ workers who have lost their jobs.

soVeryTired 10y ago
That's the theory, but I worry that the practice could be different. Are people really that fungible? I have a feeling that if you ask a 50-year-old auto manufacturing specialist to start again (at the bottom) in a different industry and a different city, the experience would break him.