8 ms·
An obvious answer here is that "America First", as with any isolationist and protectionist policy, is explicitly bad economic policy in our globalized world.
by knowaveragejoe 6y ago
An obvious answer here is that "America First", as with any isolationist and protectionist policy, is explicitly bad economic policy in our globalized world.
- gh-throw 6y agoIsolationism's probably not a great idea, sure, and there might be room to argue that protectionism is typically bad policy for the US, but the argument that protectionism is bad for all states in the modern economy, or that it's bad for every trade relationship the US maintains, is much harder to support.
- analognoise 6y ago"Globalized world" is bullshit - quarterly profit driven mentality has reduced our manufacturing sector to the point where it's a security concern. Also, the globalized world (re China) was, at one point, looking like they'd liberalize and join the rest of the world - we would all rather trade goods than bullets. That has proven to be a mistake, and we're correcting it by investing in manufacturing and infrastructure here. "But the global economy" - nope. It turns out it matters where the factories are located, and we're trying to right the ship - finally!
- knowaveragejoe 6y agoI'm saddened to see such economically illiterate garbage on HN. We're living in a globalized world, and everyone is better for it.
- derpyaphap 6y agoTell that to the Uyghurs :)
- analognoise 6y agoYeah like these people think you need a PhD to tell the working class has been getting fucked here in this country for the last 40 years. Real wages are flat, housing is through the roof, manufacturing jobs offshoring left entire regions destitute, healthcare costs skyrocketed, there's lead in the tapwater... but apparently if we think globalization is bad (or that the myth of the free market) we're uneducated - while the CCP sends jets to intimidate Taiwan and even Ford can't get semiconductors. We're going to finally increase taxes on corporations and the government is going to spend freely on semiconductors and R&D like they did in the 50's and 60's, but these things are... bad, compared to the last 40 years of policy? Citation needed. There needs to be a clear delineation between "globalization" (we're all multicultural and can all be friends - this is true and good) and "globalization" (we compete for the bottom of the barrel pricing with people who throw the untreated water from the factory into the local river - this is bad).
- HobbseanMess 6y agoExcellent remark. The report card on globalization thus far is a hollowed out economy in the west with rent-seeking and the profits of globalization floating around in financial assets in a sterile fashion. Even the new conservatives are waking up to this. It's far better that the west employ these new protectionist approaches and reindustrialize their countries. China isn't just producing cheap Hasbro toys. They are increasingly moving up the value chain while America moves down and its people are employed in increasingly low productivity jobs. Our old elite sold us out. Thankfully some of the elite have figured this out. The rest are still reading their 2000s-era textbook telling them some abstract idea of globalization is great. No thank you. That's how you get a worse Trump.
- analognoise 6y agoI don't buy the lines about the elite - regular people voted in the republicans and the neocons who favored these policies. It's hard to pin it on "the elite" when they were voted in after explicitly explaining their views. There's a large section of the populace that would rather other people do worse than have everyone do better - and they got exactly what they voted for. We can't pawn it off on "elites". Same with "rent-seeking behavior" - if you incentivize it that way, you get exactly what you structured the policies for. It's the people's fault, not some high and mighty class that's smart enough to look at the policies and come to the same conclusion everyone else would (and did).