4 ms·
offshoring is short term optimization and has long term negative consequences by killing the entire ecosystem it takes to go from raw material to finished produ
by ren_engineer 4y ago
offshoring is short term optimization and has long term negative consequences by killing the entire ecosystem it takes to go from raw material to finished products. The problem is that economists only think 1st order effects, not 2nd and 3rd order.
Charlie Munger has a pretty good take on it and how many economists and our own government officials are in complete denial about it:
>Now let’s follow and second and third order consequences: You are more prosperous than you would have been if you hadn’t traded with China in terms of average well-being in the United States, right? Ricardo proved it. But which nation is going to be growing faster in economic terms? It’s obviously China. They’re absorbing all the modern technology of the world through this great facilitator in free trade, and, like the Asian Tigers have proved, they will get ahead fast. Look at Hong Kong. Look at Taiwan. Look at early Japan. So, you start in a place where you’ve got a weak nation of backward peasants, a billion and a quarter of them, and in the end they’re going to be a much bigger, stronger nation than you are, maybe even having more and better atomic bombs. Well, Ricardo did not prove that that’s a wonderful outcome for the former leading nation. He didn’t try to determine second order and higher order effects.
>If you try and talk like this to an economics professor, and I’ve done this three times, they shrink in horror and offense because they don’t like this kind of talk. It really gums up this nice discipline of theirs, which is so much simpler when you ignore second and third order consequences.
>The best answer I ever got on that subject – in three tries – was from George Schultz. [Schultz was an MIT economics professor before becoming Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State.] He said, “Charlie, the way I figure it is if we stop trading with China, the other advanced nations will do it anyway, and we wouldn’t stop the ascent of China compared to us, and we’d lose the Ricardo- diagnosed advantages of trade.” Which is obviously correct. And I said, “Well George, you’ve just invented a new form of the tragedy of the commons. You’re locked in this system and you can’t fix it. You’re going to go to a tragic hell in a handbasket, if going to hell involves being once the great leader of the world and finally going to the shallows in terms of leadership.” And he said, “Charlie, I do not want to think about this.” I think he’s wise. He’s even older than I am, and maybe I should learn from him.
Basically our leaders know we are in a horrible position and are counting on dying before the full consequences of their actions take effect.
it's funny how HN says outsourcing manufacturing is fine and has no negative consequences while going into a fury at the suggestion that software engineering can/should be outsourced. Both result in short term gains but long term negatives
- pas 4y agowow, that's some high-density bullshit. > But which nation is going to be growing faster in economic terms? well, likely both. because of trade and specialization. when the US offshored shoemaking people did not just went to the beach and called it a day. both capital and labor got reallocated for better returns. (yes, not everyone moved to the service industry, unfortunately not everybody was able or willing to change to different jobs/sectors.) > maybe even having more and better atomic bombs even one is plenty. > If you try and talk like this to an economics professor, and I’ve done this three times, they shrink in horror and offense because they don’t like this kind of talk. It really gums up this nice discipline of theirs, which is so much simpler when you ignore second and third order consequences. was it at a xenophobic libertarian economists party? anyway regarding higher order effects and long-term strategy and American "interests": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVQDUQR8I4&t=117s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVQDUQR8I4&t=117s and https://reason.com/2022/06/07/globalization-is-alive-well-and-changing/ https://reason.com/2022/06/07/globalization-is-alive-well-an...
- ren_engineer 4y ago>wow, that's some high-density bullshit. your response to the argument that economists are wrong is to post more stuff from economists that don't look at 2nd order effects? China doesn't practice anything resembling free trade and as a result they are dominating naïve Western economies the biggest problem is people who worship "free trade" as a religion while smarter nations use it as a tool to bash them in the head
- pas 4y agoNone of those are economists though. (I don't know whether they have econ degrees of some sorts but neither of them are practicing economists, both are pundits.) I'm completely in favor of levying customs on China for anticompetitive practices. (Eg. favoring state-owned enterprises against other market participants.) The point that the free trade zealots make - correctly IMHO - is that despite all the problems with the freeness of trade the trade part in itself got us so so so much prosperity. > they are dominating naïve Western economies Okay, that's a very vague claim. Dominating how? Their GDP growth is bigger? (Which is completely expected, it's much easier to catch up.) They stole a lot of tech? (Western companies knew all the risks when they entered into these partnerships, plus if they feel their IP is misused they can - and do - sue both inside and outside China, I guess with largely predictable outcomes.)