5 ms·

> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. I keep seeing these statements on here and they're utterly misle

by maeil 2y ago

> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. I keep seeing these statements on here and they're utterly misleading. Protectionism is a spectrum. It is practiced by every single country. It's a very bold assumption to make that if every country would completely eliminate everything resembling it, this would benefit everyone. The opposite is very likely. There are numerous cases of protectionist policies where the country instituting them very clearly benefited from them, even in the long run. I have spent more than a decade in two countries, each having been on a different part of the protectionist spectrum since many decades ago. It is clear as day that the more protectionist one has, throughout, continuing to this day, seen very large benefits from this policy, larger than the benefits from the less protectionist country. We really need to stop propagating this myth among the educated in the West, it's just as harmful as "trickle-down economics" used to be before it became common knowledge that it's a fairy tale.

kriops 2y ago
A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. This is neither complicated nor controversial.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business and wreck the country. >It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. There's a huge misunderstanding in here somewhere. Most people don't think of their own welfare in terms of a negative outcome for anyone else. It's not necessarily a zero sum game. People can coexist and duplicate effort, and that sometimes makes sense. An individual or nation should strive for some reasonable level of self-sufficiency, because you can't always rely on other people to treat you well or take care of you.
  - kriops 2y ago
    To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the harm they would inflict. Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.
      - kriops 2y ago
        > Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion Only in a risk-free/non-probabilistic world. To be clear, 'my freedom ends where your begins' is a way to simplify and summarize an approach to the theory of rights. The point of bringing it up in this context was to point out that there is an equilibrium between opportunity spaces of different actors. In other words, as long as we share the universe, we can't do expect to do literally anything (to other actors or their property in particular) without reprecussions, because any justification for it would be inconsistent.

by maeil 2y ago

kriops 2y ago

A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. This is neither complicated nor controversial.

wakawaka28 2y ago
>A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business and wreck the country. >It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. There's a huge misunderstanding in here somewhere. Most people don't think of their own welfare in terms of a negative outcome for anyone else. It's not necessarily a zero sum game. People can coexist and duplicate effort, and that sometimes makes sense. An individual or nation should strive for some reasonable level of self-sufficiency, because you can't always rely on other people to treat you well or take care of you.
- kriops 2y ago
  To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the harm they would inflict. Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.
    - kriops 2y ago
      > Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion Only in a risk-free/non-probabilistic world. To be clear, 'my freedom ends where your begins' is a way to simplify and summarize an approach to the theory of rights. The point of bringing it up in this context was to point out that there is an equilibrium between opportunity spaces of different actors. In other words, as long as we share the universe, we can't do expect to do literally anything (to other actors or their property in particular) without reprecussions, because any justification for it would be inconsistent.