3 ms·
The point is to have a system that does not discriminate based on lottery.
by zerr 1mo ago
The point is to have a system that does not discriminate based on lottery.
- ckrapu 1mo agoWell, an American farmer cannot sell his grain in India. That also seems to be discrimination simply because he is in the wrong place. Are you arguing that all protectionism is flawed and wrong?
- __d 1mo agoUntil very recently, that was a pretty common view. Countries generally want unconstrained exports, while limiting competitive imports.
- ckrapu 1mo agoThat might be true in practice but also 1) completely incompatible with global notions of fairness and justice, and 2) not an especially compelling political argument for getting countries to open up their markets.
- __d 1mo ago(1) Agreed. (2) There’s very few sustainable global competitive advantages. Sometimes you might have a better natural resource by virtue of geography and getting in first to “own“ it. But for most businesses, reducing trade barriers really just introduces more competition.
- happytoexplain 1mo agoThat's a great ideal, but is obviously impossible to the extent that you are implying, until we can eliminate national and legal borders entirely, which is a distant-future goal. You're putting the horse lightyears before the cart.