5 ms·

To be fair, the thinking at the time was that trade relationships would foster better relations overall. I honestly don't think the results could have been fore

To be fair, the thinking at the time was that trade relationships would foster better relations overall. I honestly don't think the results could have been foreseen early on. Also perhaps it didn't have to be this way. An awful lot of people have been willing to overlook issues over the decades because it put money in their pockets in the short term. Perhaps if the US had taken a tougher stance on these issues earlier rather than turning a blind eye while they pilled up and reached a breaking point things could have turned out differently.

Consultant32452 3y ago
>To be fair, the thinking at the time was that trade relationships would foster better relations overall. The people in power never believed that. That's just how it was marketed to the people whose lives they were destroying.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Ricardo's Comparative Advantage argument was specifically derived under the condition of closed capital accounts because Ricardo himself didn't only understand but actively warned about what would happen with open capital accounts. Every time he got trotted out to rationalize the policies that deindustrialized the United States he must have been spinning in his grave. For more, read "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis. The thesis is in the title and the case is convincing.
  - Consultant32452 3y ago
    A similar thing happens with immigration. The public discourse is about "jobs Americans won't accept", labor shortages, bringing in the best and brightest, etc. The closed door discussions are all about wage suppression of the middle class.
- bluGill 3y ago
  It worked very well with south Korea, Japan ,Germany, Taiwan, allowed which were either enemies or not a democracy 100 years ago. Vietnam seems to be working that direction as well. It seemed to be working in China too until Xi took over.
  - Consultant32452 3y ago
    Korea, Japan, and Germany were violently subjugated by the US. We didn't just "free trade" our way into making them nice.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      TIL the Marshall Plan was "violent subjugation"
      - Consultant32452 3y ago
        We literally nuked Japan and intentionally carpet bombed civilian infrastructure in Germany.
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        We didn't make them nice by destroying them. We made them nice by rebuilding them afterward in our image. Which, as it turned out, was a lot better than what they were working with previously.
    - parineum 3y ago
      in the case of Germany and especially Japan, violently pacified is a much better phrase.
  - specialist 3y ago
    ICYMI, The Prince podcast is quite good. Introducing The Prince: Searching for Xi Jinping https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022/09/07/introducing-the-prince https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022/09/07/introducing-th... Am noob. TIL: One motivation of Xi Jinping's strategic policy shifts is anti-corruption. I can't help but wonder if there were alternatives. Like legislation, enforcement, and strengthening the judiciary. But I'm noob. If it was just that easy, it probably would have happened. > It seemed to be working in China too until Xi took over. Ya. This whole mess just makes me sad. I had really hoped China and USA would continue to grow towards each other.
huytersd 3y ago
To be fair, it has improved a lot of relationships. We hardly see entire large countries at war with each other and I’m sure the dependency chains have a lot to do with it.
- skhr0680 3y ago
  That’s what people said before WWI. I think the real reason is MAD
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I dunno, I think the real reason is people got tired of world wars. Post WW2 only one country had nuclear weapons and could've chosen to subjugate the rest of the world if they wanted to.
edgyquant 3y ago
Sure it was. The thinking at the time was a small group of people could make a shit ton of money and we can rationalize it to the suckers on the ground by saying it’ll actually make China more like us. You act as if there wasn’t a consistent movement the entire time screaming that this was a horrible idea. Even Donald Trump was saying this in the early 90s
jaredhallen 3y ago
True. And let's not forget that a lot of the rationale centered around bolstering China as an ally against the USSR. In hindsight we were too successful in that goal, and should have made adjustments to trade structures a long time ago.

Consultant32452 3y ago

>To be fair, the thinking at the time was that trade relationships would foster better relations overall. The people in power never believed that. That's just how it was marketed to the people whose lives they were destroying.

jjoonathan 3y ago
Ricardo's Comparative Advantage argument was specifically derived under the condition of closed capital accounts because Ricardo himself didn't only understand but actively warned about what would happen with open capital accounts. Every time he got trotted out to rationalize the policies that deindustrialized the United States he must have been spinning in his grave. For more, read "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis. The thesis is in the title and the case is convincing.
- Consultant32452 3y ago
  A similar thing happens with immigration. The public discourse is about "jobs Americans won't accept", labor shortages, bringing in the best and brightest, etc. The closed door discussions are all about wage suppression of the middle class.
bluGill 3y ago
It worked very well with south Korea, Japan ,Germany, Taiwan, allowed which were either enemies or not a democracy 100 years ago. Vietnam seems to be working that direction as well. It seemed to be working in China too until Xi took over.
- Consultant32452 3y ago
  Korea, Japan, and Germany were violently subjugated by the US. We didn't just "free trade" our way into making them nice.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    TIL the Marshall Plan was "violent subjugation"
    - Consultant32452 3y ago
      We literally nuked Japan and intentionally carpet bombed civilian infrastructure in Germany.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        We didn't make them nice by destroying them. We made them nice by rebuilding them afterward in our image. Which, as it turned out, was a lot better than what they were working with previously.
  - parineum 3y ago
    in the case of Germany and especially Japan, violently pacified is a much better phrase.
- specialist 3y ago
  ICYMI, The Prince podcast is quite good. Introducing The Prince: Searching for Xi Jinping https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022/09/07/introducing-the-prince https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022/09/07/introducing-th... Am noob. TIL: One motivation of Xi Jinping's strategic policy shifts is anti-corruption. I can't help but wonder if there were alternatives. Like legislation, enforcement, and strengthening the judiciary. But I'm noob. If it was just that easy, it probably would have happened. > It seemed to be working in China too until Xi took over. Ya. This whole mess just makes me sad. I had really hoped China and USA would continue to grow towards each other.

huytersd 3y ago

To be fair, it has improved a lot of relationships. We hardly see entire large countries at war with each other and I’m sure the dependency chains have a lot to do with it.

skhr0680 3y ago
That’s what people said before WWI. I think the real reason is MAD
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I dunno, I think the real reason is people got tired of world wars. Post WW2 only one country had nuclear weapons and could've chosen to subjugate the rest of the world if they wanted to.

edgyquant 3y ago

Sure it was. The thinking at the time was a small group of people could make a shit ton of money and we can rationalize it to the suckers on the ground by saying it’ll actually make China more like us. You act as if there wasn’t a consistent movement the entire time screaming that this was a horrible idea. Even Donald Trump was saying this in the early 90s

jaredhallen 3y ago

True. And let's not forget that a lot of the rationale centered around bolstering China as an ally against the USSR. In hindsight we were too successful in that goal, and should have made adjustments to trade structures a long time ago.