3 ms·
that being said, there are ways this could be beneficial both ways instead of one way. I’d also argue that it’s perfectly fine for the US and any other nation
by no_wizard 3y ago
that being said, there are ways this could be beneficial both ways instead of one way.
I’d also argue that it’s perfectly fine for the US and any other nation to think in terms of putting their domestic economy first, regardless of anything else
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoAs I stated elsewhere, America's median income, adjusted for cost of living, is one of the world's highest. Americans benefit from cheap goods from other countries. It might be socially acceptable to put the domestic economy first, but that doesn't mean it is right. Ultimately, it's basically the same as the "looking out for #1" philosophy that rich people allegedly have, which is being condemned in this thread -- but at the rich country level rather than the rich individual level. Try this calculator: https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
- bhb916 3y agoTo top this all off, our ability to "put the domestic economy first" through policy is non-existent. Any attempt to fix this "problem", that you accurately described as a problem only because it's socially unacceptable, would end up harming us in some way. There is a mountain of evidence over the last century to back this up, we just refuse to listen.
- no_wizard 3y agoIt is beneficial. I generally believe in free trade as long as both sides have agreements in place that follows laws and policies mutual to both parties However not every situation is like this. For instance, offshoring was used to artificially suppress wages of IT workers. That’s not mutually beneficial in the slightest. It’s abusing one cost advantage over another without a clear benefit to both sides, it only served to enrich shareholders