4 ms·

Free trade is one of those aspects of the game stacked in favor of the rich. It allows US companies to bypass all the protections for American workers and have

Free trade is one of those aspects of the game stacked in favor of the rich. It allows US companies to bypass all the protections for American workers and have things built cheaply overseas using foreign labor. There’s a reason the American left opposed free trade until five minutes ago: https://reason.com/2016/03/10/bernie-sanders-free-trade-mythology/ https://reason.com/2016/03/10/bernie-sanders-free-trade-myth...

stretchwithme 2y ago
The rich are always behind every change that people don't like or understand. The argument used to be that low tariffs enabled shifting work to where labor and environmental laws were weaker, reducing demand for American labor. Effectively subsidizing pollution and human suffering. But then someone came along and agreed. Can't believe something that he agrees with.
- segfaultex 2y ago
  This is a bit reductive. The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Implementing targeted tariffs in a way that spurs domestic labor and secures vital industries is common practice. What's not common practice or beneficial are the broad tariffs we're levying, which come from a place of ignorance. The implementers literally didn't think retaliation would happen, but it is/will. All these are accomplishing is increasing the cost of goods.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Democrats think lots of things that are "economic consensus" do not accurately describe how the world works in practice, or fails to capture important values. "Economic consensus" also is that VAT is the most efficient form of taxation and that capital gains taxes are harmful.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      To be clear about the above, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that position. It’s fine to have policy planks that posit that experts are wrong about something.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That certain someone embraced Bernie's views on the three major points he has most been correct about: immigration, free trade, and the self-serving administrative state. And now a large swath of the other side sounds like Reagan republicans on those points.
Workaccount2 2y ago
There is another side to the coin here: People love cheap shit. They absolutely love it. Walmart and globalism didn't put Benny's General Store underwater, consumers choosing cheap shit did.
sangnoir 2y ago
> There’s a reason the American left opposed free trade until five minutes ago I don't know on what scale your clock runs on, but Bill Clinton's "Third Way" campaign was 35 years ago. China's admission into the WTO was under the Clinton administration. If 5 minutes is a generation, America isn't 2 hours old yet on your clock.
- gruez 2y ago
  >but Bill Clinton's "Third Way" campaign was 35 years ago. China's admission into the WTO was under the Clinton administration. I thought the support was bipartisan? For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Relations_Act_of_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Re...
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    It was bipartisan because the Democratic party swung rightwards (towards the center) on economic policy under Clinton with the said "Third way[1]", which combined being socially progressive with economic liberalism, i.e. cozying up to employers rather than workers, which was the Democratic party's former schtick until they lost a couple of presidential elections in a row through the 1980s. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
    - rayiner 2y ago
      It wasn’t quite bipartisan. Only a minority of democrats in the house (108 of 258) voted for nafta for example. Large swaths of the Democratic Party opposed free trade until Obama.

stretchwithme 2y ago

The rich are always behind every change that people don't like or understand. The argument used to be that low tariffs enabled shifting work to where labor and environmental laws were weaker, reducing demand for American labor. Effectively subsidizing pollution and human suffering. But then someone came along and agreed. Can't believe something that he agrees with.

segfaultex 2y ago
This is a bit reductive. The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Implementing targeted tariffs in a way that spurs domestic labor and secures vital industries is common practice. What's not common practice or beneficial are the broad tariffs we're levying, which come from a place of ignorance. The implementers literally didn't think retaliation would happen, but it is/will. All these are accomplishing is increasing the cost of goods.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Democrats think lots of things that are "economic consensus" do not accurately describe how the world works in practice, or fails to capture important values. "Economic consensus" also is that VAT is the most efficient form of taxation and that capital gains taxes are harmful.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    To be clear about the above, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that position. It’s fine to have policy planks that posit that experts are wrong about something.
rayiner 2y ago
That certain someone embraced Bernie's views on the three major points he has most been correct about: immigration, free trade, and the self-serving administrative state. And now a large swath of the other side sounds like Reagan republicans on those points.

Workaccount2 2y ago

There is another side to the coin here: People love cheap shit. They absolutely love it. Walmart and globalism didn't put Benny's General Store underwater, consumers choosing cheap shit did.

sangnoir 2y ago

> There’s a reason the American left opposed free trade until five minutes ago I don't know on what scale your clock runs on, but Bill Clinton's "Third Way" campaign was 35 years ago. China's admission into the WTO was under the Clinton administration. If 5 minutes is a generation, America isn't 2 hours old yet on your clock.

gruez 2y ago
>but Bill Clinton's "Third Way" campaign was 35 years ago. China's admission into the WTO was under the Clinton administration. I thought the support was bipartisan? For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Relations_Act_of_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Re...
- sangnoir 2y ago
  It was bipartisan because the Democratic party swung rightwards (towards the center) on economic policy under Clinton with the said "Third way[1]", which combined being socially progressive with economic liberalism, i.e. cozying up to employers rather than workers, which was the Democratic party's former schtick until they lost a couple of presidential elections in a row through the 1980s. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
  - rayiner 2y ago
    It wasn’t quite bipartisan. Only a minority of democrats in the house (108 of 258) voted for nafta for example. Large swaths of the Democratic Party opposed free trade until Obama.