3 ms·

> Imagine a world where each nation is essentially a person... I gonna stop you right there, pardner. The first objection to protectionist legislation is that

> Imagine a world where each nation is essentially a person... I gonna stop you right there, pardner. The first objection to protectionist legislation is that it benefits certain people in our country (the producers of X) by hurting the interests of other people in our same country. Because you've analogized an entire country as a single person, your analogy is by definition incapable of addressing this problem.

penteract 5y ago
I can see 2 interpretations of that objection, and I'm not sure which one you mean. I agree that protectionist legislation harms some individuals within the country enacting it. If you're arguing that the analogy does not take the harms into account then I disagree with you - the analogy collects all benefits and harms into the same person - if Carla is a more efficient homebuilder, then not trading with her results in having a worse home (or more time being spent on it). If you're arguing that people have a right to free trade and depriving them of that right cannot be offset by gains to others, then I think you should state this more clearly, as I'm not sure it's less controversial than the somewhat utilitarian philosophy implicit in the analogy.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  No, no... The problem is more basic than that. Consider this: How should we decide on whether to implement a protectionist policy, if the producer and consumer don't agree on the relative costs vs. benefits? Naively, just ask the producer(s) to put a price number on how much financial benefit they'll receive... And then ask the consumer(s) to assign a price number to their costs. The government compares the two numbers, and if the benefit of protection to producers is higher, our government implements the policy. Ok, but in practice, the financial impacts of trade policy changes are really hard to quantify, especially in advance. We don't have any obvious, objective signals like public market prices, so you'd have to dig into the business models and accounts of both domestic AND foreign firms. Public filings won't provide the right data, you'll likely need access to the confidential details that underlie their public reports. Also, you needs to assess the behavior of consumers in response to the new policy, potentially on a mass scale. You need detailed data on historical consumer behavior, plus a prediction model. Oh, and you need to predict the future of the world economy, how major events will transpire going forward, how foreign governments/firms/consumers will counter your policy... And then model the impacts of all that on consumer/producer behavior. ... Anyway, point is: Humans don't actually have sufficient tools to evaluate the specific financial effects of trade policy changes. Our best, brightest, most well-informed analysts can make some aggregate guesses, but in the real world the analysts are right almost as often as they're wrong. Hypothetically, IF we had a relatively reliable, accurate ability to evaluate the impacts, we could make policy that way. But we don't, so we don't. Moral arguments that rely on such a capability are just wishes for horses.
Jedd 5y ago
Parent is describing a different problem - which is neither contradicted nor negated by the problem you describe.

penteract 5y ago

I can see 2 interpretations of that objection, and I'm not sure which one you mean. I agree that protectionist legislation harms some individuals within the country enacting it. If you're arguing that the analogy does not take the harms into account then I disagree with you - the analogy collects all benefits and harms into the same person - if Carla is a more efficient homebuilder, then not trading with her results in having a worse home (or more time being spent on it). If you're arguing that people have a right to free trade and depriving them of that right cannot be offset by gains to others, then I think you should state this more clearly, as I'm not sure it's less controversial than the somewhat utilitarian philosophy implicit in the analogy.

SkittyDog 5y ago
No, no... The problem is more basic than that. Consider this: How should we decide on whether to implement a protectionist policy, if the producer and consumer don't agree on the relative costs vs. benefits? Naively, just ask the producer(s) to put a price number on how much financial benefit they'll receive... And then ask the consumer(s) to assign a price number to their costs. The government compares the two numbers, and if the benefit of protection to producers is higher, our government implements the policy. Ok, but in practice, the financial impacts of trade policy changes are really hard to quantify, especially in advance. We don't have any obvious, objective signals like public market prices, so you'd have to dig into the business models and accounts of both domestic AND foreign firms. Public filings won't provide the right data, you'll likely need access to the confidential details that underlie their public reports. Also, you needs to assess the behavior of consumers in response to the new policy, potentially on a mass scale. You need detailed data on historical consumer behavior, plus a prediction model. Oh, and you need to predict the future of the world economy, how major events will transpire going forward, how foreign governments/firms/consumers will counter your policy... And then model the impacts of all that on consumer/producer behavior. ... Anyway, point is: Humans don't actually have sufficient tools to evaluate the specific financial effects of trade policy changes. Our best, brightest, most well-informed analysts can make some aggregate guesses, but in the real world the analysts are right almost as often as they're wrong. Hypothetically, IF we had a relatively reliable, accurate ability to evaluate the impacts, we could make policy that way. But we don't, so we don't. Moral arguments that rely on such a capability are just wishes for horses.

Jedd 5y ago

Parent is describing a different problem - which is neither contradicted nor negated by the problem you describe.