4 ms·

Countries aren't Borg ships. Trade between countries have beneficiaries and victims in both countries. The victims usually have zero say in the trade so, no, th

Countries aren't Borg ships. Trade between countries have beneficiaries and victims in both countries. The victims usually have zero say in the trade so, no, they can't simply decline a transaction that harms them.

worrycue 3y ago
They can decline the whole agreement. Thus the agreement has to be a win for them too else there is no reason to sign.
- sidkshatriya 3y ago
  This is assuming that every trade delegation can accurately predict all the impacts into the future. This is especially difficult now because the pace of change in the world is only increasing. In general trade is a good thing. It must be encouraged but everything is not so open and shut.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Inaccurate predictions go “both ways” and applies to both countries.
    - notnaut 3y ago
      The benefits and consequences of which are entirely asymmetrical. There’s a reason poor people engage in significantly higher rates of some of the worst “trade decisions” in the form of gambling. On top of that, when your pool of resources are closer to skim, poor trade decisions result in health-harmful effects, which continue to contribute to poor decision making.
BurningFrog 3y ago
Who are the victims when someone buys something from someone in another country? How is that different from when they buy from someone in the same country?
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  The typical argument is in a closed market everyone buys something produced locally by local labor. In an open market the lowest cost supplier wins. Which will mean when costs of production are asymmetric, the supplier in the more expensive market loses. So while a single transaction has occurred, someone loses because of the trade agreement. This is because in a market that’s not theoretical there are actual people losing out. But this is the typical argument against free trade and protectionism - I assume it’s not new? I’m sympathetic fwiw. But I think maximizing trade is generally good and don’t want to see a reversal. The real issue in my mind is trade allows for environmental, labor, and other regulatory arbitrage. If the benefits in pricing were just market based I’d be down with it no matter the pain. But that’s not really what’s going on. The regulatory arbitrage is a race to the bottom not just in wages or other spaces that in my belief stabilize over time, in irreversible spaces like destruction of the earth.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The USA dumps food and clothes on many poor countries, absolutely destroying their own agriculture and clothing industries.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Millions of people who formerly worked in those factories that lost their jobs to outsourcing and have never economically recovered? How can you ask such a question when we have the answer here in the real world?

worrycue 3y ago

They can decline the whole agreement. Thus the agreement has to be a win for them too else there is no reason to sign.

sidkshatriya 3y ago
This is assuming that every trade delegation can accurately predict all the impacts into the future. This is especially difficult now because the pace of change in the world is only increasing. In general trade is a good thing. It must be encouraged but everything is not so open and shut.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Inaccurate predictions go “both ways” and applies to both countries.
  - notnaut 3y ago
    The benefits and consequences of which are entirely asymmetrical. There’s a reason poor people engage in significantly higher rates of some of the worst “trade decisions” in the form of gambling. On top of that, when your pool of resources are closer to skim, poor trade decisions result in health-harmful effects, which continue to contribute to poor decision making.

BurningFrog 3y ago

Who are the victims when someone buys something from someone in another country? How is that different from when they buy from someone in the same country?

fnordpiglet 3y ago
The typical argument is in a closed market everyone buys something produced locally by local labor. In an open market the lowest cost supplier wins. Which will mean when costs of production are asymmetric, the supplier in the more expensive market loses. So while a single transaction has occurred, someone loses because of the trade agreement. This is because in a market that’s not theoretical there are actual people losing out. But this is the typical argument against free trade and protectionism - I assume it’s not new? I’m sympathetic fwiw. But I think maximizing trade is generally good and don’t want to see a reversal. The real issue in my mind is trade allows for environmental, labor, and other regulatory arbitrage. If the benefits in pricing were just market based I’d be down with it no matter the pain. But that’s not really what’s going on. The regulatory arbitrage is a race to the bottom not just in wages or other spaces that in my belief stabilize over time, in irreversible spaces like destruction of the earth.
bombcar 3y ago
The USA dumps food and clothes on many poor countries, absolutely destroying their own agriculture and clothing industries.
edgyquant 3y ago
Millions of people who formerly worked in those factories that lost their jobs to outsourcing and have never economically recovered? How can you ask such a question when we have the answer here in the real world?