3 ms·

Nothing is what it seems in this industry. If we had a free market system here in the US GM would of went out of business in 08 and the streets would be filled

Nothing is what it seems in this industry. If we had a free market system here in the US GM would of went out of business in 08 and the streets would be filled with cheap BYD imports from China. We have major domestic protectionism in place b/c in times of war the auto industry can and has been used to produce the machines of war. EVs produced in the US by domestic automakers are heavily subsidized

elzbardico 3y ago
Free Trade is something that powerful nations impose on less powerful nations. Anything else is just ideological bullshit. EDIT: I understand that free trade theoretically could be a win-win game. But the real world is a lot more complicated, and is a historical fact that developed nations always have and continue to push for less powerful nations to open their markets while abusing of protectionist practices themselves.
- rwmj 3y ago
  How do you account for Singapore?
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    Singapore has significant central planning as part of its economy and also does some protectionism. It's also an important US proxy in the region. Not unlike South Korea in both respects.
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    Singapore economy is a result of foreign investment aided by very generous tax benefits and a repressive regime that ensured for a long time a low paid and compliant work-force. Being also basically a city-state without natural resources, Singapore was always trade-oriented and as a commercial hub of course it is in an extraordinary position to engage in free-trade. But believing that the same recipe could be applied for Argentina, South-Africa or Brasil takes a lot more faith But what is funny about the Singapore example always abused on those conversations is that it begs the question of why people always cite a more or less tiny Asian city-state as the most prominent case of the success of free-trade instead of bigger economies like the US, China, Japan, South Korea or the UE. And the reason for that is that all those nations have always engaged and still engage on protectionist practices while expecting less developed markets to open their borders. Subsides, Non-Tax Barriers, Direct government investments, taxes and fees, you name it, they did and they do it.
  - csomar 3y ago
    Singapore is a tiny city-state and its model can't scale for large nations.
  - scythe 3y ago
    Singapore overlooks the strait of Malacca, the key gateway by sea between India and China. It has been a strategic trading port for centuries. The cost of shipping goods there is correspondingly low — ships go there anyway. Consequently, it has always had a culture and economy that was prepared to take advantage of our high-trade global economy. Being the Switzerland of Asia doesn't hurt either. Panama is the logical point of comparison — its governance has been consistently atrocious (cf. Noriega), but it nonetheless remains among the front of the pack in Latin America economically.
  - esotericimpl 3y ago
    [dead]
- Barrin92 3y ago
  Then why does the Jones act exist and why is the US curtailing chip exports to China, and why does Mercosur want a trade deal with Europe? No, free trade is mutually beneficial and the natural state of things, protection exists for two reasons. Pursuit of military interests (blockades) or satisfying domestic rent seekers. (e.g. the shipping industry, farmers etc.)
- jryle70 3y ago
  That's a very narrow minded view. China is number one counterpoint. Without free trade, and very favorable terms that Western countries offered, China wouldn't become the superpower it is today. The tension between US and China today has more to do with geopolitics than protectionism. Read the following (from 1984) to understand how Deng Xiao Peng saw the roles of Special Economic Zone in the revival of China's economy: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1984/21.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/198...
azinman2 3y ago
I’m not sure if you’re trying to say this is good or bad. Seems good to me.
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  It's too complex of a system to label the whole "good" or "bad". There are a many involved parties and they're affected by it in multiple ways. I think you're trying to say the consumer harm of increased prices of EVs is outweighed by the benefits to industry etc?
  - azinman2 3y ago
    The entire revolt against globalism shows that just lowering price isn’t enough when you no longer have a job, or the job you have pays you very little. It’s not smart for a country to let all of their industrial engine be replaced just because it’s cheaper. It’s more expensive in the long run.
    - konstmonst 3y ago
      The problem is that an industry can be used as leverage by China to hurt the economy. See Putin and Gazprom, Tawianese Chips and so on. Globalization is good, because it makes production of consumer goods more cost effective. But cost alone is not worth much if the supply is not reliable and can be leveraged by a potential opponent.
- csomar 3y ago
  It's good if the local market catches up in the next 3-4 years. It's catastrophic if they do not, however.
metabagel 3y ago
GM was bailed out to save the jobs. And it’s got nothing to do with the “free market”. The “free market” is between GM and their customers.

elzbardico 3y ago

Free Trade is something that powerful nations impose on less powerful nations. Anything else is just ideological bullshit. EDIT: I understand that free trade theoretically could be a win-win game. But the real world is a lot more complicated, and is a historical fact that developed nations always have and continue to push for less powerful nations to open their markets while abusing of protectionist practices themselves.

rwmj 3y ago
How do you account for Singapore?
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  Singapore has significant central planning as part of its economy and also does some protectionism. It's also an important US proxy in the region. Not unlike South Korea in both respects.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  Singapore economy is a result of foreign investment aided by very generous tax benefits and a repressive regime that ensured for a long time a low paid and compliant work-force. Being also basically a city-state without natural resources, Singapore was always trade-oriented and as a commercial hub of course it is in an extraordinary position to engage in free-trade. But believing that the same recipe could be applied for Argentina, South-Africa or Brasil takes a lot more faith But what is funny about the Singapore example always abused on those conversations is that it begs the question of why people always cite a more or less tiny Asian city-state as the most prominent case of the success of free-trade instead of bigger economies like the US, China, Japan, South Korea or the UE. And the reason for that is that all those nations have always engaged and still engage on protectionist practices while expecting less developed markets to open their borders. Subsides, Non-Tax Barriers, Direct government investments, taxes and fees, you name it, they did and they do it.
- csomar 3y ago
  Singapore is a tiny city-state and its model can't scale for large nations.
- scythe 3y ago
  Singapore overlooks the strait of Malacca, the key gateway by sea between India and China. It has been a strategic trading port for centuries. The cost of shipping goods there is correspondingly low — ships go there anyway. Consequently, it has always had a culture and economy that was prepared to take advantage of our high-trade global economy. Being the Switzerland of Asia doesn't hurt either. Panama is the logical point of comparison — its governance has been consistently atrocious (cf. Noriega), but it nonetheless remains among the front of the pack in Latin America economically.
- esotericimpl 3y ago
  [dead]
Barrin92 3y ago
Then why does the Jones act exist and why is the US curtailing chip exports to China, and why does Mercosur want a trade deal with Europe? No, free trade is mutually beneficial and the natural state of things, protection exists for two reasons. Pursuit of military interests (blockades) or satisfying domestic rent seekers. (e.g. the shipping industry, farmers etc.)
jryle70 3y ago
That's a very narrow minded view. China is number one counterpoint. Without free trade, and very favorable terms that Western countries offered, China wouldn't become the superpower it is today. The tension between US and China today has more to do with geopolitics than protectionism. Read the following (from 1984) to understand how Deng Xiao Peng saw the roles of Special Economic Zone in the revival of China's economy: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1984/21.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/198...

azinman2 3y ago

I’m not sure if you’re trying to say this is good or bad. Seems good to me.

droopyEyelids 3y ago
It's too complex of a system to label the whole "good" or "bad". There are a many involved parties and they're affected by it in multiple ways. I think you're trying to say the consumer harm of increased prices of EVs is outweighed by the benefits to industry etc?
- azinman2 3y ago
  The entire revolt against globalism shows that just lowering price isn’t enough when you no longer have a job, or the job you have pays you very little. It’s not smart for a country to let all of their industrial engine be replaced just because it’s cheaper. It’s more expensive in the long run.
  - konstmonst 3y ago
    The problem is that an industry can be used as leverage by China to hurt the economy. See Putin and Gazprom, Tawianese Chips and so on. Globalization is good, because it makes production of consumer goods more cost effective. But cost alone is not worth much if the supply is not reliable and can be leveraged by a potential opponent.
csomar 3y ago
It's good if the local market catches up in the next 3-4 years. It's catastrophic if they do not, however.

metabagel 3y ago

GM was bailed out to save the jobs. And it’s got nothing to do with the “free market”. The “free market” is between GM and their customers.