3 ms·

I'm not making an assumption about some undefined norm. I'm saying trade policy and regulation we have enacted has taken too heavy a toll on one half of the cou

I'm not making an assumption about some undefined norm. I'm saying trade policy and regulation we have enacted has taken too heavy a toll on one half of the country, to benefit the rest.

chillacy 10y ago
I'm saying Tariffs we have enacted in the past has taken a toll on us all to help a few in those protected industries. Tariffs are essentially a tax on all of us, with the proceeds going to businesses in a specific industry. Consider Obama's Tire Tariffs in 2009: we all collectively paid over a billion dollars to save maybe 1200 jobs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-obamas-tire-tariffs-have-hurt-consumers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-o... And it does matter what the norm is. Look: if you want to be the tallest tree in a forest, you can either get lots of water and sunlight and effort to grow the tallest. Or you can chop all the other trees down so you're the tallest. Free trade with minimal government favoritism is allowing the best trees (analogous to the best business ideas) to thrive and grow the tallest. Tariffs are akin to chopping down a few feet from all the trees to boost up the trees which are growing in the shade or otherwise disadvantaged. In nature, those trees are supposed to die.
- riazrizvi 10y ago
  I agree with the tree analogy, it is suboptimal for all to benefit a few. But that is a policy tool which can be used to reverse the excessive cost of optimization born by one half the country to benefit the other half. It's about getting the balance right.
  - eru 10y ago
    Alas, tariffs don't actually achieve the aim you are setting here. Something like land value tax plus basic income might, coupled with sensible, steady monetary policy.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    I have mixed feelings. I agree that some form of welfare is generally necessary. And Tariffs at least are a type of welfare which rewards those who work. The bad side is that the work is essentially wasted economic input. Akin to paying people to handmake a bottle of beer when we could be automating the task, and economic forces encourage the other 999 workers to learn something new. But I get that it can be hard, especially for older folks or those without access to education opportunities. I recall reading an article about the corporate structure in Japan which offers guaranteed employment for life to the same entity, and if you job vanishes they simply retrain you for another job, but you'll be set for life. That seems like it has benefits.

I'm not making an assumption about some undefined norm. I'm saying trade policy and regulation we have enacted has taken too heavy a toll on one half of the country, to benefit the rest.

chillacy 10y ago

I'm saying Tariffs we have enacted in the past has taken a toll on us all to help a few in those protected industries. Tariffs are essentially a tax on all of us, with the proceeds going to businesses in a specific industry. Consider Obama's Tire Tariffs in 2009: we all collectively paid over a billion dollars to save maybe 1200 jobs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-obamas-tire-tariffs-have-hurt-consumers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-o... And it does matter what the norm is. Look: if you want to be the tallest tree in a forest, you can either get lots of water and sunlight and effort to grow the tallest. Or you can chop all the other trees down so you're the tallest. Free trade with minimal government favoritism is allowing the best trees (analogous to the best business ideas) to thrive and grow the tallest. Tariffs are akin to chopping down a few feet from all the trees to boost up the trees which are growing in the shade or otherwise disadvantaged. In nature, those trees are supposed to die.

riazrizvi 10y ago
I agree with the tree analogy, it is suboptimal for all to benefit a few. But that is a policy tool which can be used to reverse the excessive cost of optimization born by one half the country to benefit the other half. It's about getting the balance right.
- eru 10y ago
  Alas, tariffs don't actually achieve the aim you are setting here. Something like land value tax plus basic income might, coupled with sensible, steady monetary policy.
- chillacy 10y ago
  I have mixed feelings. I agree that some form of welfare is generally necessary. And Tariffs at least are a type of welfare which rewards those who work. The bad side is that the work is essentially wasted economic input. Akin to paying people to handmake a bottle of beer when we could be automating the task, and economic forces encourage the other 999 workers to learn something new. But I get that it can be hard, especially for older folks or those without access to education opportunities. I recall reading an article about the corporate structure in Japan which offers guaranteed employment for life to the same entity, and if you job vanishes they simply retrain you for another job, but you'll be set for life. That seems like it has benefits.