3 ms·
>The flip side is that it is not great that this results in influential industry groups having way too much power. Not sure how to resolve this. Don't make mul
by mixedCase 10y ago
>The flip side is that it is not great that this results in influential industry groups having way too much power. Not sure how to resolve this.
Don't make multinational all-encompasing trade deals. If you want freer trade, the best way to do it is to make small agreements on a country-by-country basis to tear down some protectionist policies each party has against the other.
This allows you to pick and choose the deals the population wants.
- walterbell 10y agoYes, e.g. Vietnam has established bi-lateral trade agreements with several of the TPP participants.
- eru 10y agoIf you want free trade, the best way to go about it is to just lower your own barriers to trade: just because other countries are banging their heads against the wall doesn't mean we should do so, too. No negotiation required. The classical parable uses the more topical `if that other country was putting rubble in all their harbours, would we do so too? If not, why does it make a difference if their barriers physical or political?'
- mixedCase 10y ago> If you want free trade, the best way to go about it is to just lower your own barriers to trade: just because other countries are banging their heads against the wall doesn't mean we should do so, too. Are you saying protectionist policies don't work? Because your idea would do nothing but hurt your own country by putting you at a disadvantage.
- eru 10y agoProtectionist policies are as a whole bad for the country enacting them. (But they can benefit certain special interests.) This is basically the least controversial and most orthodox position in the history of all of economics. Basically all economists agree with this one, even if they disagree on a lot of other things.