4 ms·

Most of the comments say that this is unreasonable or that it makes little economic sense. But let's take the case of tariffs. An heterodox economist will tell

by cuchoi 10y ago

Most of the comments say that this is unreasonable or that it makes little economic sense. But let's take the case of tariffs. An heterodox economist will tell you that every country should eliminate all their tariffs, because it is "pareto optimal" (you are not making anyone worse-off). Well, now we know that that is not true. The rust-belt is a clear example of this. Automatization is similar. Technological progress is needed, but it has short and medium term negative side effects. For example, during some periods of the Industrial Revolution wages declined (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-16/industrial-revolution-comparisons-aren-t-comforting https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-16/industria...). A tax can be a good way to compensate for the negative externalities of automatization.

richardwhiuk 10y ago
We don't know that the rust belt would have been better off if there had been tariffs.
- cuchoi 10y ago
  There is academic research documenting the impact of trade agreements on the labor market. The main take away is that on average the welfare gains are huge, but not everybody is better of. Still, if you do not believe in the impact of tariffs, the point still stands for other types of protectionism.
iopq 10y ago
> Most of the comments say that this is unreasonable or that it makes little economic sense. But let's take the case of tariffs. An heterodox economist will tell you that every country should eliminate all their tariffs, because it is "pareto optimal" (you are not making anyone worse-off). Well, now we know that that is not true. The rust-belt is a clear example of this. People in the rust belt sure enjoy their cheap imports. Just because SOME people lost their jobs, doesn't mean the office worker who still has her job doesn't benefit.
wonder_er 10y ago
except tariffs make _terrible_ economic sense. It's "taxing" the nation to support a small but vocal group. I guess... just know the "rust belt example" you allude to isn't a clear example at all, except to someone who already agrees with you. Taxes are generally terrible ways to compensate for things, especially because if my neighbor is suffering and under duress, I'll support him. (Take him/her food, let them live with us, borrow our car, etc.) but if I'm taxed to a place where my own existence is threatened, I won't support anyone. And my dollars spent by me in support of someone else will be better spent than the government can.
lugg 10y ago
I suspect a temporary tax with set deadline for re-evaluation would be a good way to go. I think a tax would be needed in the short term transition period but after we get ubi or similar sorted it should probably go away. The situation really just boils down to: we have better tools coming, only this time the labour displacement is going to be unheard of in magnitude. We need some way of limiting the fall out. While taxing robots is a silly idea, it might just be the only thing that is a feasible solution. People tend to forget that real people lose their livelihoods when technology happens. This isn't nice, but we tend to shrug it off because we have social nets in place. If we don't have the money to pay for those social nets we're fucked.

by cuchoi 10y ago

richardwhiuk 10y ago

We don't know that the rust belt would have been better off if there had been tariffs.

cuchoi 10y ago
There is academic research documenting the impact of trade agreements on the labor market. The main take away is that on average the welfare gains are huge, but not everybody is better of. Still, if you do not believe in the impact of tariffs, the point still stands for other types of protectionism.

iopq 10y ago

> Most of the comments say that this is unreasonable or that it makes little economic sense. But let's take the case of tariffs. An heterodox economist will tell you that every country should eliminate all their tariffs, because it is "pareto optimal" (you are not making anyone worse-off). Well, now we know that that is not true. The rust-belt is a clear example of this. People in the rust belt sure enjoy their cheap imports. Just because SOME people lost their jobs, doesn't mean the office worker who still has her job doesn't benefit.

wonder_er 10y ago

except tariffs make _terrible_ economic sense. It's "taxing" the nation to support a small but vocal group. I guess... just know the "rust belt example" you allude to isn't a clear example at all, except to someone who already agrees with you. Taxes are generally terrible ways to compensate for things, especially because if my neighbor is suffering and under duress, I'll support him. (Take him/her food, let them live with us, borrow our car, etc.) but if I'm taxed to a place where my own existence is threatened, I won't support anyone. And my dollars spent by me in support of someone else will be better spent than the government can.

lugg 10y ago

I suspect a temporary tax with set deadline for re-evaluation would be a good way to go. I think a tax would be needed in the short term transition period but after we get ubi or similar sorted it should probably go away. The situation really just boils down to: we have better tools coming, only this time the labour displacement is going to be unheard of in magnitude. We need some way of limiting the fall out. While taxing robots is a silly idea, it might just be the only thing that is a feasible solution. People tend to forget that real people lose their livelihoods when technology happens. This isn't nice, but we tend to shrug it off because we have social nets in place. If we don't have the money to pay for those social nets we're fucked.