3 ms·
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, b
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoSo 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)