3 ms·

An argument against trade with China is not an argument against free trade agreements in general. Why are you conflating the two?

toss1 5y ago
Because China is an excellent example of how unfettered pro-free-trade policies focused only on transitory economic benefits, can lead to the downfall of a superpower — that arc of history is not yet complete, but the rest of the world is at now clearly at considerably greater risk of Chinese CCP hegemony both in Asia-Pacific and globally than we all would be had the focus not been so myopically focused on "free trade uber alles". In general, and in principle, I'm in favor of free trade - it is the ideal situation. Among societies with relatively equal capabilities and regulatory environments, and compatible governments (democracy vs authoritarian), free trade should be the default setting. But, free trade, aside from the massive strategic risks, is also a very convenient way for businesses to externalize their costs. Required to actually provide benefits like minimum wage to your workers? Required to not pollute the town you live it? Need to 'recycle' plastics that can't actually be economically recycled? Why bother, those cost too much! Just export the problems to some other poor nation where you can use slave labor, pollute all you want and just dump the 'recycling' as trash, and complain about Free Trade Restrictions... Nevermind that we create new countries with competitive CO2 emissions, vast polluted wastelands, slave labor, and that our labor force is now directly competing with theirs. Of course it looks like there's a benefit to us. And of course the economists you sponsor can produce studies showing how beneficial it is. That does not mean that it is true, especially in the long term. Yes Free Trade in general is a great ideal. That does not mean that it is an unalloyed good in every situation.
- cycrutchfield 5y ago
  None of these things are exactly groundbreaking discoveries lately. I feel like you are taking a very narrow situation, which is China, and somehow imputing that to every other trading partner in the developing world. For instance, were you at the time in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? That agreement had provisions in it to cover many of your concerns about environmental externalities or forced labor. Unfortunately it got scuttled by some FUD from people who sound a lot like you. >Of course it looks like there's a benefit to us. And of course the economists you sponsor can produce studies showing how beneficial it is. That does not mean that it is true, especially in the long term. The benefits of free trade are pretty universally understood by economists. It's not something you need to "sponsor" to get some slanted take on the benefits.
  - toss1 5y ago
    I'm not talking about sponsored slanted takes on benefits. I'm talking about a general myopia focusing on short-term I was in favor of the TPP, at least the parts that both dealt with some of the inequalities and esp. in that it constrained China. CCP is a huge problem, and is both uniquely well-positioned and explicitly strategizing to exploit this myopia. It may be the only example like this, but such a failure can be existential. That's why it becomes a focus. Many other situations are different, but giving away core manufacturing know-how is not typically covered by economists as a long-term issue, and is very hard to restore once lost.

toss1 5y ago

Because China is an excellent example of how unfettered pro-free-trade policies focused only on transitory economic benefits, can lead to the downfall of a superpower — that arc of history is not yet complete, but the rest of the world is at now clearly at considerably greater risk of Chinese CCP hegemony both in Asia-Pacific and globally than we all would be had the focus not been so myopically focused on "free trade uber alles". In general, and in principle, I'm in favor of free trade - it is the ideal situation. Among societies with relatively equal capabilities and regulatory environments, and compatible governments (democracy vs authoritarian), free trade should be the default setting. But, free trade, aside from the massive strategic risks, is also a very convenient way for businesses to externalize their costs. Required to actually provide benefits like minimum wage to your workers? Required to not pollute the town you live it? Need to 'recycle' plastics that can't actually be economically recycled? Why bother, those cost too much! Just export the problems to some other poor nation where you can use slave labor, pollute all you want and just dump the 'recycling' as trash, and complain about Free Trade Restrictions... Nevermind that we create new countries with competitive CO2 emissions, vast polluted wastelands, slave labor, and that our labor force is now directly competing with theirs. Of course it looks like there's a benefit to us. And of course the economists you sponsor can produce studies showing how beneficial it is. That does not mean that it is true, especially in the long term. Yes Free Trade in general is a great ideal. That does not mean that it is an unalloyed good in every situation.

cycrutchfield 5y ago
None of these things are exactly groundbreaking discoveries lately. I feel like you are taking a very narrow situation, which is China, and somehow imputing that to every other trading partner in the developing world. For instance, were you at the time in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? That agreement had provisions in it to cover many of your concerns about environmental externalities or forced labor. Unfortunately it got scuttled by some FUD from people who sound a lot like you. >Of course it looks like there's a benefit to us. And of course the economists you sponsor can produce studies showing how beneficial it is. That does not mean that it is true, especially in the long term. The benefits of free trade are pretty universally understood by economists. It's not something you need to "sponsor" to get some slanted take on the benefits.
- toss1 5y ago
  I'm not talking about sponsored slanted takes on benefits. I'm talking about a general myopia focusing on short-term I was in favor of the TPP, at least the parts that both dealt with some of the inequalities and esp. in that it constrained China. CCP is a huge problem, and is both uniquely well-positioned and explicitly strategizing to exploit this myopia. It may be the only example like this, but such a failure can be existential. That's why it becomes a focus. Many other situations are different, but giving away core manufacturing know-how is not typically covered by economists as a long-term issue, and is very hard to restore once lost.