3 ms·

> OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to.

by dash2 6y ago

> OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to. That is indeed a problem, but it is your problem. If 48% of people support anything, there must be some reasons for it. You're right about the consensus among economists. At the same time, 10 years ago there was a consensus about the virtues of free trade. Then Autor et al. wrote "The China Shock" and other similar papers, and, well, now there's not a consensus any more. Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing? Is desire for ethnic homogeneity close to racism? It seems to be very widely shared - including among impeccable liberals. See the evidence on white flight in Kaufmann's Whiteshift. Homophily is close to a human universal, so it's not obvious that it is wrong, or stupid, to prefer others like ourselves. If we trade we have to accept rules. But now we get to choose which, right? As you say, if we don't like US rules on chicken, we can trade that off against the costs. The value of tying ourselves to the EU depends on how you view its future. There's a fair case that it is an aging, sclerotic continent that can only make money by imposing fines on US tech companies. I don't say that's the only perspective that you can make. Lastly, the UK is a democracy. The EU, hardly (see Perry Anderson's recent essays in the LRB for a fairly comprehensive account). Democracy sure has its flaws, but doesn't the threat of the boot encourage politicians to get things done? In this context, the contrast between the UK's vaccination program and the EU's is telling.

gmac 6y ago
> That is indeed a problem, but it is your problem. If 48% of people support anything, there must be some reasons for it. Sure, and I think the most palatable conclusion is that a very large number of people are not well informed. If you look at UK news outlets — what they choose to report, how they choose to report it, and the interests of the people who own them — this doesn't stretch credibility very much. > Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing? Yes, I believe they are. I am wary here of Michael Gove's quasi-fascist rhetoric of having "had enough of experts". > it is an aging, sclerotic continent that can only make money by imposing fines on US tech companies The big tech companies are too large and too powerful to be safe for democracy (or indeed for healthy forms of capitalism involving genuine competition). I would like to see more action taken against them everywhere. The EU is large enough to stand up to large corporations of this sort. The UK outside the EU is not.
- aembleton 6y ago
  > The UK outside the EU is not. Why not? Australia is smaller and just stood up to them.
  - orwin 6y ago
    Two points here: 1/ You're right, UK is big an rich enough to make them cave a little, and is also speaking english and have a good diplomatic reputation, that will help. 2/ Australia is a weird country and have weird politicians, i don't think any western country could've done the same on their own.
- dash2 6y ago
  >> Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing? >Yes, I believe they are. I am wary here of Michael Gove's quasi-fascist rhetoric of having "had enough of experts". Heh.... I'm an economist. Trust me on this one.
imtringued 6y ago
>You're right about the consensus among economists. At the same time, 10 years ago there was a consensus about the virtues of free trade. Then Autor et al. wrote "The China Shock" and other similar papers, and, well, now there's not a consensus any more. Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing? Physical reality: Factories are in China we don't have to work in the EU to get manufactured stuff! The Chinese are working their butts off for us and we are making them rich in the process! Anti free trade idea: Chinese people working their butts off for us should be illegal. We would rather work ourselves and prefer expensive domestically produced products (if you did, why make the "inferior" competition illegal?). We don't need high skill jobs, low skill work is just as important!
- dash2 6y ago
  "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." One particular reason: while trade increases welfare, it also has distributional effects. As trade barriers go to zero, the marginal effect on welfare of a further reduction becomes small, compared to the marginal effect on distribution. Another reason: globalization allows capital to avoid restrictions (e.g. on environmental externalities, child labour, slavery) that are seen in the West as part of the social contract. Here's the Autor paper: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18054/w18054.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18054/w180... Dani Rodrik's recent work on populism: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23559/w23559.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23559/w235... And his classic "Has globalization gone too far" is worth reading too.

by dash2 6y ago

gmac 6y ago

> That is indeed a problem, but it is your problem. If 48% of people support anything, there must be some reasons for it. Sure, and I think the most palatable conclusion is that a very large number of people are not well informed. If you look at UK news outlets — what they choose to report, how they choose to report it, and the interests of the people who own them — this doesn't stretch credibility very much. > Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing? Yes, I believe they are. I am wary here of Michael Gove's quasi-fascist rhetoric of having "had enough of experts". > it is an aging, sclerotic continent that can only make money by imposing fines on US tech companies The big tech companies are too large and too powerful to be safe for democracy (or indeed for healthy forms of capitalism involving genuine competition). I would like to see more action taken against them everywhere. The EU is large enough to stand up to large corporations of this sort. The UK outside the EU is not.

aembleton 6y ago
> The UK outside the EU is not. Why not? Australia is smaller and just stood up to them.
- orwin 6y ago
  Two points here: 1/ You're right, UK is big an rich enough to make them cave a little, and is also speaking english and have a good diplomatic reputation, that will help. 2/ Australia is a weird country and have weird politicians, i don't think any western country could've done the same on their own.
dash2 6y ago
>> Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing? >Yes, I believe they are. I am wary here of Michael Gove's quasi-fascist rhetoric of having "had enough of experts". Heh.... I'm an economist. Trust me on this one.

imtringued 6y ago

>You're right about the consensus among economists. At the same time, 10 years ago there was a consensus about the virtues of free trade. Then Autor et al. wrote "The China Shock" and other similar papers, and, well, now there's not a consensus any more. Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing? Physical reality: Factories are in China we don't have to work in the EU to get manufactured stuff! The Chinese are working their butts off for us and we are making them rich in the process! Anti free trade idea: Chinese people working their butts off for us should be illegal. We would rather work ourselves and prefer expensive domestically produced products (if you did, why make the "inferior" competition illegal?). We don't need high skill jobs, low skill work is just as important!

dash2 6y ago
"I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." One particular reason: while trade increases welfare, it also has distributional effects. As trade barriers go to zero, the marginal effect on welfare of a further reduction becomes small, compared to the marginal effect on distribution. Another reason: globalization allows capital to avoid restrictions (e.g. on environmental externalities, child labour, slavery) that are seen in the West as part of the social contract. Here's the Autor paper: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18054/w18054.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18054/w180... Dani Rodrik's recent work on populism: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23559/w23559.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23559/w235... And his classic "Has globalization gone too far" is worth reading too.