3 ms·
Your comment is fine. And accurate. But I am arguing from the standpoint of "global-trade-as-a-machine". And in this case an idealized machine with only one di
by fifilura 5y ago
Your comment is fine. And accurate.
But I am arguing from the standpoint of "global-trade-as-a-machine". And in this case an idealized machine with only one dimension (fish or crops or labor).
Of course if you live in Ukraine and have only one leg and love developing microprocessors, the "global-trade-as-a-machine" will pick that up and let you work on that rather than work as a farmer (one-leggedness and interest/drive as two new dimensions). (Although just as likely it will allow you to move to another country to pursue your interest.)
And of course governments have noticed the inequalities produced by this machine and are doing its best to counter that with more or less enthusiasm.
- rbanffy 5y ago> the "global-trade-as-a-machine" will pick that up and let you work on that rather than work as a farmer (one-leggedness and interest/drive as two new dimensions). (Although just as likely it will allow you to move to another country to pursue your interest.) That's not really how immigration and economic opportunity works. Our one-legged farmer would have to be astonishingly lucky for that to happen. > And of course governments have noticed the inequalities produced by this machine and are doing its best to counter that with more or less enthusiasm. It's more like they are taking measures against other governments that gain strategic relevance based on these factors. One way to counter China's advantage with manufacturing cost would be to force China to adopt and enforce better labor laws and increase compensation. In fact, having a single global standard for compensation and worker rights would be a wonderful thing. As long as it's good and includes progressive taxes on the accumularion of wealth and a mechanism to compensate for undue political power from wealth.