4 ms·

That well intended argument has frequently been used as a protectionist argument to keep out cheaper goods from developing nations. E.g. the EU doesn't allow ce

That well intended argument has frequently been used as a protectionist argument to keep out cheaper goods from developing nations. E.g. the EU doesn't allow certain produce from Africa because of these reasons. Most African countries simply won't be able to comply, and the sad thing is that trading produce with the west is one of the only ways for them to escape poverty. So the people you aim to protect are left worse off.

CuriouslyC 6y ago
History says that aid to corrupt governments to help the suffering there mostly ends up in the pockets of the people in power, so I'm frankly okay with that. When they get their act together, they can be welcomed into the fold.
- speleding 6y ago
  Trade is generally accepted as one of the best ways to relieve poverty, precisely because money ends up close to the workers instead of with corrupt governments.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Generally accepted does not equate to the one true way, and in fact, when people generally accept something to be the only truth they usually turn out to be wrong. Economic theory being as contested as it is, and how demonstrably inefficient current economic theories have been at lifting people out of poverty, I would not be surprised if history will regard the statement of “trade is one of the best ways to relieve poverty” to be a failure. And even if the statement is true, this statement might not hold with international trade as it does with local trade. Perhaps if local populations were allowed to trade freely among them self would be a superior option, then if the rich west were constantly under bidding and under paying. To take an example. Angola trades a lot with rich countries (particularly with China), yet Angola has one of the worst dictatorships in Southern Africa, and has one of the poorest working class. International trade does not seem to be helping in that case.
  - RestlessMind 6y ago
    The same argument was applied to China in 2000 that trade would transition them to democracy. Instead, we got both poverty eradication AND the entrenchment of their corrupt government in an even stronger position thanks to a stronger economy. I would be very reluctant to support trade with a despot regime.
    - speleding 6y ago
      I think a billion people out of poverty is a net win. Even if their government hasn't become as democratic as we hoped, the chances of it eventually becoming more democratic aren't much less than 20 years ago. If you only want to do business with democratic regimes you will likely hurt the poor people at the bottom more than the despots in power.
      - RestlessMind 6y ago
        > I think a billion people out of poverty is a net win. On the loss side, we have allowed this despot regime to amass so much power (thanks to the economic growth) that they can take the following steps with impunity 1. ethnic cleansing of Uighur minorities 2. support of a rogue nuclear regime in North Korea 3. Subjugating more than a billion people with perpetual surveillance and authoritarian rule 4. Increasing risks of a strife with multiple neighbors - Japan (Senkaku), S. Korea (via N. Korea), Taiwan (claiming sovereignty), Vietnam (South China Sea) etc. It feels like a net loss to me.
        speleding 6y ago
        Except for maybe that last point, I really don't see how having 1 billion people in misery is going to help. Do you have any better solution or would you just hope those regimes change by themselves eventually?

CuriouslyC 6y ago

History says that aid to corrupt governments to help the suffering there mostly ends up in the pockets of the people in power, so I'm frankly okay with that. When they get their act together, they can be welcomed into the fold.

speleding 6y ago
Trade is generally accepted as one of the best ways to relieve poverty, precisely because money ends up close to the workers instead of with corrupt governments.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Generally accepted does not equate to the one true way, and in fact, when people generally accept something to be the only truth they usually turn out to be wrong. Economic theory being as contested as it is, and how demonstrably inefficient current economic theories have been at lifting people out of poverty, I would not be surprised if history will regard the statement of “trade is one of the best ways to relieve poverty” to be a failure. And even if the statement is true, this statement might not hold with international trade as it does with local trade. Perhaps if local populations were allowed to trade freely among them self would be a superior option, then if the rich west were constantly under bidding and under paying. To take an example. Angola trades a lot with rich countries (particularly with China), yet Angola has one of the worst dictatorships in Southern Africa, and has one of the poorest working class. International trade does not seem to be helping in that case.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  The same argument was applied to China in 2000 that trade would transition them to democracy. Instead, we got both poverty eradication AND the entrenchment of their corrupt government in an even stronger position thanks to a stronger economy. I would be very reluctant to support trade with a despot regime.
  - speleding 6y ago
    I think a billion people out of poverty is a net win. Even if their government hasn't become as democratic as we hoped, the chances of it eventually becoming more democratic aren't much less than 20 years ago. If you only want to do business with democratic regimes you will likely hurt the poor people at the bottom more than the despots in power.
    - RestlessMind 6y ago
      > I think a billion people out of poverty is a net win. On the loss side, we have allowed this despot regime to amass so much power (thanks to the economic growth) that they can take the following steps with impunity 1. ethnic cleansing of Uighur minorities 2. support of a rogue nuclear regime in North Korea 3. Subjugating more than a billion people with perpetual surveillance and authoritarian rule 4. Increasing risks of a strife with multiple neighbors - Japan (Senkaku), S. Korea (via N. Korea), Taiwan (claiming sovereignty), Vietnam (South China Sea) etc. It feels like a net loss to me.
      - speleding 6y ago
        Except for maybe that last point, I really don't see how having 1 billion people in misery is going to help. Do you have any better solution or would you just hope those regimes change by themselves eventually?