3 ms·

Ah, I see you point. Sorry it took me awhile to get there :) Regarding "it leaves everyone poor", how is the case if it's zero sum? It seems like it comes down

by bumby 3y ago

Ah, I see you point. Sorry it took me awhile to get there :) Regarding "it leaves everyone poor", how is the case if it's zero sum? It seems like it comes down to how you define your metric of 'poor'. It seems like it presupposes there isn't enough money to go around, so it's better to have a few people rich and the rest destitute, rather than have everyone just be marginally poor. Or are we getting into productivity incentive territory here?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> how is the case if it's zero sum Trade isn’t zero sum. Ricardian mechanics is what overturned mercantilism. You paying more for your neighbour to do work than someone down the street deprives you of money and everyone of economies of scale.
- bumby 3y ago
  Doesn’t this break down once your utility function goes beyond strict economics? E.g., economics may say it’s best to let Taiwan specialize in semiconductors, but that may not be optimal once you factor in other dimensions like national security. Humans are not Homo Economicus
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > economics may say it’s best to let Taiwan specialize in semiconductors, but that may not be optimal once you factor in other dimensions like national security. Humans are not Homo Economicus And those other dimensions come at a cost. National security seems like a reasonable thing to pay a cost for. Enriching an oligarch does not. A lot of protectionism is about the latter.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Sure, just like the hypothetical yard work has a cost. I think what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se, but it’s bad when it’s abused for individual purposes rather than broader purposes.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se It makes people materially poorer and redistributes wealth, typically up. That is a fair price to pay in some circumstances, e.g. bolstering defence manufacturers.
        bumby 3y ago
        So on some dimensions, protectionism can make people better off (eg more secure). It seems your issue isn’t that it makes “everyone” poorer (there seems to be a contradiction between your previous and last statement), but more so you aren’t comfortable with how the decision is made (eg by fiat)

by bumby 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> how is the case if it's zero sum Trade isn’t zero sum. Ricardian mechanics is what overturned mercantilism. You paying more for your neighbour to do work than someone down the street deprives you of money and everyone of economies of scale.

bumby 3y ago
Doesn’t this break down once your utility function goes beyond strict economics? E.g., economics may say it’s best to let Taiwan specialize in semiconductors, but that may not be optimal once you factor in other dimensions like national security. Humans are not Homo Economicus
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > economics may say it’s best to let Taiwan specialize in semiconductors, but that may not be optimal once you factor in other dimensions like national security. Humans are not Homo Economicus And those other dimensions come at a cost. National security seems like a reasonable thing to pay a cost for. Enriching an oligarch does not. A lot of protectionism is about the latter.
  - bumby 3y ago
    Sure, just like the hypothetical yard work has a cost. I think what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se, but it’s bad when it’s abused for individual purposes rather than broader purposes.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se It makes people materially poorer and redistributes wealth, typically up. That is a fair price to pay in some circumstances, e.g. bolstering defence manufacturers.
      - bumby 3y ago
        So on some dimensions, protectionism can make people better off (eg more secure). It seems your issue isn’t that it makes “everyone” poorer (there seems to be a contradiction between your previous and last statement), but more so you aren’t comfortable with how the decision is made (eg by fiat)