3 ms·

i don't necessarily disagree, but why do you think it absolutely has to be symmetric in order for both parties to gain? When Japan was allowed on the US market,

i don't necessarily disagree, but why do you think it absolutely has to be symmetric in order for both parties to gain? When Japan was allowed on the US market, around 1960, their GDP per capita was like $400 vs. $3000 in the US. both turned out alright.

ggm 3y ago
If referring to me I said equity not equality. The gdp difference makes it implausible for the balance of trade to reflect domestic patterns. It will be cheap labour in Mexico and goods imported to the USA at lower tarrifs. Like NAFTA, it will have internal opposition.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I said equity not equality I have never seen these terms used in international relations. In American English, I take them to be synonymous with equality outcome versus equal opportunity. How does that map to entire nations?
  - didibus 3y ago
    Normally equity refers to everyone getting their fair share. It's never been synonymous with equality of outcomes. For example, equal opportunity might dictate that you consider both women and men for a job position, giving women equal opportunity. But equity demands that they'd be paid the same for the same work.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > equity demands that they'd be paid the same for the same work Which is equality of outcomes. (What “fair” means is the entire debate. Redefining fair as equitable doesn’t move us forward. Maybe we have this contortion because equality of outcomes became synonymous with communism, so now we get equity and equality with no bearing for those terms’ histories.) This redefinition of “equity” is modern and regional to parts of America. It sounds like it’s based on equity in law [1], but it’s not. That newness and regionality makes it difficult to predict what someone launching it into a new domain, like international relations, means, hence why I asked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)
      - didibus 3y ago
        > Which is equality of outcomes It's not though. Equality of outcomes would be something like, we should all make the same salary. But equity says that discrimination or favoritism should have no impact to the salary you make, you should make a salary that's purely dependent on the work you're doing. Or another example. If black people represent 20% of the population, but companies boards are 100% made up of white members. Equality of outcomes would say that you'd need the same amount of white and black board members, 50/50. But equity would say you need 20% of them to be black, thus proportional representation. Equality of outcomes can itself be unfair, like in that example. Equity is about fairness. When has equality of outcomes not been synonymous with communism? I mean, communism has more to it, but equality of outcomes is one of its propositions. Everyone should make the exact same money, no matter what they do. Equity distinguishes itself from that, by focusing on fair outcomes, that remove prejudice and addresses discrimination. So my read of OP about international trade was similar to how I think of equity. They're saying that the trade shouldn't be made by the rich country as a way to take advantage of a poorer country such as paying a lot less than what it would pay for the same if trading with a richer country or sourcing something from within their own country, just because the poor country is more desperate.
CPLX 3y ago
> both turned out alright Ever been to Detroit?
- cjalmeida 3y ago
  Detroit auto had their own undoing. Protecting them vs. allowing cheaper and better Japanese cars would be terrible for the average American. Germany auto handled global trade just fine.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    It’s a symptom of a national disease which has been terrible for half the country. Not allowing corporations to outsource all manufacturing would not have been terrible for the average American. That’s the argument of those who got extremely rich while selling off Americans globally dominant manufacturing position and abandoning large swathes of the country. There are more important things to a nation in the medium to long term than cheap trinkets and a small minority becoming wealthier.
- yawgmoth 3y ago
  Detroit is not a simple situation, many factors aside from NAFTA have resulted in its decline. To your point though, Michigan absolutely needs to continue diversifying its economy. It has prestigious education yet tremendous brain drain. Wages are low, yet some costs like auto insurance are among the most expensive in the nation.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  For a period, Britain tried to keep its car industry going through protectionism. This went out the window when they joined Europe, of course, but by then the car industry was in a very bad way anyway. Protectionism _alone_ won’t save an industry (possibly unless it is very absolutist North Korean style protectionism; “you _must_ buy British Leyland’s crap; it is literally the only option”.) Otherwise, protectionism might slow the decline a bit, but it won’t save an industry determined to destroy itself.
- KoftaBob 3y ago

ggm 3y ago

If referring to me I said equity not equality. The gdp difference makes it implausible for the balance of trade to reflect domestic patterns. It will be cheap labour in Mexico and goods imported to the USA at lower tarrifs. Like NAFTA, it will have internal opposition.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I said equity not equality I have never seen these terms used in international relations. In American English, I take them to be synonymous with equality outcome versus equal opportunity. How does that map to entire nations?
- didibus 3y ago
  Normally equity refers to everyone getting their fair share. It's never been synonymous with equality of outcomes. For example, equal opportunity might dictate that you consider both women and men for a job position, giving women equal opportunity. But equity demands that they'd be paid the same for the same work.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > equity demands that they'd be paid the same for the same work Which is equality of outcomes. (What “fair” means is the entire debate. Redefining fair as equitable doesn’t move us forward. Maybe we have this contortion because equality of outcomes became synonymous with communism, so now we get equity and equality with no bearing for those terms’ histories.) This redefinition of “equity” is modern and regional to parts of America. It sounds like it’s based on equity in law [1], but it’s not. That newness and regionality makes it difficult to predict what someone launching it into a new domain, like international relations, means, hence why I asked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)
    - didibus 3y ago
      > Which is equality of outcomes It's not though. Equality of outcomes would be something like, we should all make the same salary. But equity says that discrimination or favoritism should have no impact to the salary you make, you should make a salary that's purely dependent on the work you're doing. Or another example. If black people represent 20% of the population, but companies boards are 100% made up of white members. Equality of outcomes would say that you'd need the same amount of white and black board members, 50/50. But equity would say you need 20% of them to be black, thus proportional representation. Equality of outcomes can itself be unfair, like in that example. Equity is about fairness. When has equality of outcomes not been synonymous with communism? I mean, communism has more to it, but equality of outcomes is one of its propositions. Everyone should make the exact same money, no matter what they do. Equity distinguishes itself from that, by focusing on fair outcomes, that remove prejudice and addresses discrimination. So my read of OP about international trade was similar to how I think of equity. They're saying that the trade shouldn't be made by the rich country as a way to take advantage of a poorer country such as paying a lot less than what it would pay for the same if trading with a richer country or sourcing something from within their own country, just because the poor country is more desperate.

CPLX 3y ago

> both turned out alright Ever been to Detroit?

cjalmeida 3y ago
Detroit auto had their own undoing. Protecting them vs. allowing cheaper and better Japanese cars would be terrible for the average American. Germany auto handled global trade just fine.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  It’s a symptom of a national disease which has been terrible for half the country. Not allowing corporations to outsource all manufacturing would not have been terrible for the average American. That’s the argument of those who got extremely rich while selling off Americans globally dominant manufacturing position and abandoning large swathes of the country. There are more important things to a nation in the medium to long term than cheap trinkets and a small minority becoming wealthier.
yawgmoth 3y ago
Detroit is not a simple situation, many factors aside from NAFTA have resulted in its decline. To your point though, Michigan absolutely needs to continue diversifying its economy. It has prestigious education yet tremendous brain drain. Wages are low, yet some costs like auto insurance are among the most expensive in the nation.
rsynnott 3y ago
For a period, Britain tried to keep its car industry going through protectionism. This went out the window when they joined Europe, of course, but by then the car industry was in a very bad way anyway. Protectionism _alone_ won’t save an industry (possibly unless it is very absolutist North Korean style protectionism; “you _must_ buy British Leyland’s crap; it is literally the only option”.) Otherwise, protectionism might slow the decline a bit, but it won’t save an industry determined to destroy itself.
KoftaBob 3y ago