4 ms·

The question isn't whether maximum global free trade maximizes efficiency. The question is whether maximizing global economic efficiency creates optimal outcome

The question isn't whether maximum global free trade maximizes efficiency. The question is whether maximizing global economic efficiency creates optimal outcomes for a nation, for groups within a nation, or for individuals in the nation. It is clearly a mixed bag, so there is pushback. Ask these questions. Besides maximizing monetary efficiency: Does free trade maximize a nation's resiliency? Does free trade maximize a nation's employment? Does free trade maximize a nation's security? Does free trade promote equitable distribution of a nation's wealth? Unless the question is yes to every answer, it is fair to have a policy debate about how much you are going to limit free trade. Every nation does it to some degree, no matter how much free trade rhetoric they promote.

Spooky23 2y ago
With respect to the US: - We’re the richest nation on the planet and have been until recently been adept in response to many types of disasters. - Unemployment has been <5% for a few years. - The US military reigns supreme. Our 5 air forces are the top 5 in terms of airframes. - We actively pursue fiscal policy to promote inequitable wealth distribution The idiocy of conflict with China is just that. We’re better and richer together.
- dalemhurley 2y ago
  Too right, the bigger and harder issue is the distribution and concentration of wealth. It hard for someone who is living below the poverty line in the USA to feel they are benefiting from living in the richness nation in the world.
- mmooss 2y ago
  That's the problem with nationalism. The goal is not peace, freedom, and prosperity (i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness); it's your group's power. Otherwise, why disrupt the extremely successful international order?
- aj7 2y ago
  Fascists need an enemy, an “other.” Your last sentence describes globalism. But 51% of the voters voted for something else, and you and your children will now lead your lives in “interesting times.”
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  We actively pursue fiscal policy to promote inequitable wealth distribution But you don't see free trade as a policy promoting inequitable wealth distribution? As designed, free trade is literally moving jobs overseas for lower wages. The primary benefit is higher profits for big companies, and the primary loser is middle to lower class that loses jobs. The best case argument is that the people who lose jobs, and end up underemployed, enjoy cheap imports.
  - SideQuark 1y ago
    The middle and lower classes have more jobs now in the US, at higher wages, than ever. Your argument simply fails in light of evidence. You can check this via BLS, or Census, or on FRED. And those lower class Americans are higher paid than a huge part of the planet. US poverty level is at the 85th percentile in global income.
mmooss 2y ago
That's picking a strawperson to debate with - extreme, absolutist free trade, which is obviously absurd and nobody has ever seriously advocated or tried to implement. You forgot maximizing income on the list. The others are important too. > security Far more of an issue after the nationalists destroy the order that provided peace for generations, the most peaceful world in history.

Spooky23 2y ago

With respect to the US: - We’re the richest nation on the planet and have been until recently been adept in response to many types of disasters. - Unemployment has been <5% for a few years. - The US military reigns supreme. Our 5 air forces are the top 5 in terms of airframes. - We actively pursue fiscal policy to promote inequitable wealth distribution The idiocy of conflict with China is just that. We’re better and richer together.

dalemhurley 2y ago
Too right, the bigger and harder issue is the distribution and concentration of wealth. It hard for someone who is living below the poverty line in the USA to feel they are benefiting from living in the richness nation in the world.
mmooss 2y ago
That's the problem with nationalism. The goal is not peace, freedom, and prosperity (i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness); it's your group's power. Otherwise, why disrupt the extremely successful international order?
aj7 2y ago
Fascists need an enemy, an “other.” Your last sentence describes globalism. But 51% of the voters voted for something else, and you and your children will now lead your lives in “interesting times.”
WillPostForFood 1y ago
We actively pursue fiscal policy to promote inequitable wealth distribution But you don't see free trade as a policy promoting inequitable wealth distribution? As designed, free trade is literally moving jobs overseas for lower wages. The primary benefit is higher profits for big companies, and the primary loser is middle to lower class that loses jobs. The best case argument is that the people who lose jobs, and end up underemployed, enjoy cheap imports.
- SideQuark 1y ago
  The middle and lower classes have more jobs now in the US, at higher wages, than ever. Your argument simply fails in light of evidence. You can check this via BLS, or Census, or on FRED. And those lower class Americans are higher paid than a huge part of the planet. US poverty level is at the 85th percentile in global income.

mmooss 2y ago

That's picking a strawperson to debate with - extreme, absolutist free trade, which is obviously absurd and nobody has ever seriously advocated or tried to implement. You forgot maximizing income on the list. The others are important too. > security Far more of an issue after the nationalists destroy the order that provided peace for generations, the most peaceful world in history.