tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post6778404464169454189..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: A Case Against Free TradeBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-3272865948209965742014-05-01T09:29:41.614-07:002014-05-01T09:29:41.614-07:00The reason car parts were available from multiple ...The reason car parts were available from multiple other sources, despite one of Nature's temper tantrums, is because there were already deeply developed trade networks.<br /><br />Either moderate tariffs have an effect -- which means those trade networks won't be as broad and deep -- or they don't have any effect, in which case there is no point.<br /><br /><i>[Fatboy:] Very complex. Pump toxins into the air, poisons into the water and soil and allow very little worker rights or child labor laws w/o interference vs. a trading partner that doesn't. Clearly not free or fair, tariffs are in order. </i><br /><br />Funny, the very worst offenders in that regard are countries (USSR, communist China, North Korea, et al) that completely repudiated free trade.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-71058250145516256962014-04-23T12:46:27.387-07:002014-04-23T12:46:27.387-07:00Hey Skipper wrote: "Without free trade, the e...Hey Skipper wrote: "<i>Without free trade, the earthquake in Japan then creates total disruption in the Japanese car market.</i>"<br /><br />No. Because those car parts would've been available from multiple other sources, just with a moderate tariff.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-50402220614752440492014-04-20T18:55:32.810-07:002014-04-20T18:55:32.810-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-79515195719122509682014-04-20T18:54:34.617-07:002014-04-20T18:54:34.617-07:00Obviously.
Because it is soooo much better that...Obviously. <br /><br />Because it is soooo much better that a couple hundred million Chinese live in abject poverty.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-6442270240307642452014-04-20T12:51:19.217-07:002014-04-20T12:51:19.217-07:00"I'm generally for allowing trade to occu..."I'm generally for allowing trade to occur between entities with as little interference from government(s) and others as possible."<br /><br />Very complex. Pump toxins into the air, poisons into the water and soil and allow very little worker rights or child labor laws w/o interference vs. a trading partner that doesn't. Clearly not free or fair, tariffs are in order.<br /><br />US trade policies enrich the oligarchy and destroy the spirits and souls of the bottom 80% Fatboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13777120295384956611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-56547977814071420692014-04-17T02:06:31.148-07:002014-04-17T02:06:31.148-07:00Examples include: steel shifting to Asia, gutting ...<i>Examples include: steel shifting to Asia, gutting the U.S. steel industry and leaving the badly damaged rust-belt in its wake; and accelerated devastation of Appalachia from the changing economic viability of coal and farming. Each of these examples were exacerbated by rent-seeking unions, government and environmental regulations, less than optimal management, technological innovation, and foreign subsidies … </i><br /><br />You left off communism. Had it never taken over China, then it would have been more economically advanced and integrated with the rest of the world. Instead, we've been dealing with the consequences of communism, and its sudden collapse.<br /><br />That is a pretty major consideration, and outside the scope of free trade (except to the extent that free trade helped bring it about).<br /><br /><i>While efficiency is increased by global trade, the [earthquake in Japan] shows that resilience is not. </i> <br /><br />Sounds to me like it shows the opposite. Suppose there was no free trade in cars. Japan would be the only location for the makers of parts for Japanese cars. Without free trade, the earthquake in Japan then creates total disruption in the Japanese car market. And, depending upon how far you want to limit free trade, it also reduces Japan's ability to recover from the earthquake.<br /><br />As it happened, SFAIK, the global supply of cars was not particularly affected. Japan's auto makers did, but not the rest of the world's.<br /><br /><br />I think I'm with Clovis on this. The limited anti-free trade argument you make is open to some inherent weaknesses. <br /><br />Why 20%, instead of 10%?<br /><br />Imposing an across the board tariff of whatever amount allows domestic producers to raise their costs by the same amount, so that consumers end up paying more for the same thing.<br /><br />Why are national boundaries the natural shoreline for tariffs? If it is good for the US vs. the rest of the world, then why not California vs. the rest of the US?<br /><br />Also, it seems to ignore the most disruptive influence of all -- the 12 or more order of magnitude increase in computing power over the last 40 years.<br /><br />Finally, I'm not sure that reality was as chaotic as the graphic would indicate. In response to globalization, the US economy has followed pretty much one path from a start state to today. It hasn't swung between wildly different states.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-65316678665916774952014-04-11T12:18:23.935-07:002014-04-11T12:18:23.935-07:00Clovis wrote: "I would still appreciate some ...Clovis wrote: "<i>I would still appreciate some reference. ... the automovite industry in Brazil, who were affected in the first year due to the lack of those special electronics from Japan...</i>"<br /><br />I'll refer you to you, again you answer your own question. :-)Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-52982061601340250712014-04-11T12:14:32.207-07:002014-04-11T12:14:32.207-07:00Clovis wrote: "It is not so simple. Who decid...Clovis wrote: "<i>It is not so simple. Who decides what will be the tariffs value?</i>"<br /><br />An across the board tariff really is pretty simple. Congress votes on it. Special interests may influence it, but as long as it's a single number, doesn't much matter - it becomes a zero-sum game for the special interests.<br /><br />My influence would be to set the number to maximize revenues, thereby enabling the reduction of other taxes.<br /><br />Clovis wrote: "<i>For some part of the industry, the tariff will be unnecessary and you'll give them extra protection...</i>"<br /><br />Perhaps at first. Think about what would happen next assuming a free market.<br /><br />Clovis wrote: "<i>For other part of the industry, the tariff may be too low and they will be devastated anyway by the Chinese...</i>"<br /><br />That's worse than the current situation, how? At least we'd collect the tax revenues.<br />Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-81371276239997712662014-04-10T16:28:56.399-07:002014-04-10T16:28:56.399-07:00Bret,
---
I think you just answered yourself as t...Bret,<br /><br />---<br />I think you just answered yourself as to why I'd do across the board tariffs, didn't you? I'm happy to trade off some supposed optimality for reducing access to special interests.<br />---<br />It is not so simple. Who decides what will be the tariffs value? That decision will already entail special interests.<br /><br />For some part of the industry, the tariff will be unnecessary and you'll give them extra protection, and extra profits for free at the expense of the consumer.<br /><br />For other part of the industry, the tariff may be too low and they will be devastated anyway by the Chinese, so there will be whole areas where the stabilizing effect will not exist.<br /><br />Who decides who gets what?<br /><br /><br /><br />---<br />Clovis wrote: "The world markets also adapted to the (relatively short) period without those products by ordering it from elsewhere or substituting it."<br /><br />[Bret] First, no, they didn't.<br />---<br />Well, you aree surely better informed on that than I am, but I would still appreciate some reference.<br /><br />I did pay attention to the automovite industry in Brazil, who were affected in the first year due to the lack of those special electronics from Japan. I remember a few reports about relocation of orders to China, South Korea, and so on, and subtitution of technology too.<br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-46611163902741001092014-04-10T14:45:22.029-07:002014-04-10T14:45:22.029-07:00Clovis wrote: ""across the board" t...Clovis wrote: "<i>"across the board" tariffs must be too far from optimal, there are many situtations where you can easily argue for differentiation. ... I'd also point out that tariffs have always been the main tool for vested interests.</i>"<br /><br />I think you just answered yourself as to why I'd do across the board tariffs, didn't you? I'm happy to trade off some supposed optimality for reducing access to special interests.<br /><br />Clovis wrote: "<i>The world markets also adapted to the (relatively short) period without those products by ordering it from elsewhere or substituting it.</i>"<br /><br />First, no, they didn't. Second, we don't have a completely free worldwide trade regime - if we did, we might be even far more vulnerable to disruptions.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-89734922303089215152014-04-10T14:23:54.409-07:002014-04-10T14:23:54.409-07:00Bret,
I think your example of resilience does no...Bret,<br /><br /><br />I think your example of resilience does not quite fit. There has been a lot of news lately on new Japanese technologies and improvements that resulted from the Tsunami episode. Their industry basically showed themselves quite resilient then.<br /><br />The world markets also adapted to the (relatively short) period without those products by ordering it from elsewhere or substituting it. So the system was reasonably resilient worldwide, in my opinion, both in space and time.<br /><br />But I do not think it alters your final message anyway, you gave a reasonable argument for tariffs as a friction-induced stabilizer. Here I'd just add that "across the board" tariffs must be too far from optimal, there are many situtations where you can easily argue for differentiation.<br /><br />As the devil is in the details, I'd also point out that tariffs have always been the main tool for vested interests. If you fear Keynesianism not for its face value, but for its potential for manipulation, what to say of tariffs then...? <br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-44934145051792706302014-04-10T13:51:37.507-07:002014-04-10T13:51:37.507-07:00This one is a work in progress and I'll be upd...This one is a work in progress and I'll be updating it - especially as y'all comment.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.com