Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "net welfare gains," but wouldn't this just nullify any efficiencies gained? In other words, if you are suggesting that we redirect the gains don't we simply, at best, maintain the status quo?

I'm saying that if the country as a whole is going to be 1000 utils better off as a result of Free Trade Plan A, we find a way to ensure that, say, 400 of those utils are directed to those who would otherwise be harmed by Free Trade Plan A. Say, job training, or cheap malt liquor. This would work better if we could figure out a better way to provide job training, or cheap malt liquor. Usually, the cheap stuff tastes cheap.

edited to add:

It seems obvious that this should happen because everyone would be better off. What is less obvious to me is why it doesn't happen. If free traders are so certain that their plan is the best, they should be willing to pay off the prospective losers to make it happen.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Maybe I was poisoned by the "this war will pay for itself" rantings
of Fluffer on this board, but I sure didn't have the feeling that we'd be this deep in the money pit at this point. Maybe that was my naivete, to expect that my government would prepare me for a somewhat negative type of outcome after a victory in the military campaign.

FWIW, my very Republican 82 year old grandmother is still convinced that we are not paying and will not pay a cent for the war, since we'll get all the money from Iraqi oil. I'm not sure what her main source of news is, but she has faith that our President will figure out a way for us not to have to pay for the war.

I sometimes wish I had her optimism.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm saying that if the country as a whole is going to be 1000 utils better off as a result of Free Trade Plan A, we find a way to ensure that, say, 400 of those utils are directed to those who would otherwise be harmed by Free Trade Plan A. Say, job training, or cheap malt liquor. This would work better if we could figure out a better way to provide job training, or cheap malt liquor. Usually, the cheap stuff tastes cheap.

edited to add:

It seems obvious that this should happen because everyone would be better off. What is less obvious to me is why it doesn't happen. If free traders are so certain that their plan is the best, they should be willing to pay off the prospective losers to make it happen.

Well that's at least better than what I thought you were saying. I guess my major point of disagreement is that I don't see it as our (i.e., the government's) obligation. We are all adults and should be able to fend for ourselves - in other words, the 400 utils could be better spent in other places (which I believe would provide a greater "social benefit" when it is all said and done, if that is the basis for your concern).

Also, do you not believe that unemployment benefits and welfare are part of the 400 utils?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well that's at least better than what I thought you were saying. I guess my major point of disagreement is that I don't see it as our (i.e., the government's) obligation. We are all adults and should be able to fend for ourselves - in other words, the 400 utils could be better spent in other places (which I believe would provide a greater "social benefit" when it is all said and done, if that is the basis for your concern).

Also, do you not believe that unemployment benefits and welfare are part of the 400 utils?

I think you are demonstrating why this stuff never happens. I'm making an argument that has nothing to do with theories about who deserves what, or whether a free trade regime is better than a protectionist regime. I'm just saying that if free trade really produces net social gain, you'd figure people could cut deals to get a compromise to make it happen. But maybe the problem is that its backers are too intent on arguing that they should capture the benefits of free trade without having to help the losers, and so they just can't compromise.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think you are demonstrating why this stuff never happens. I'm making an argument that has nothing to do with theories about who deserves what, or whether a free trade regime is better than a protectionist regime. I'm just saying that if free trade really produces net social gain, you'd figure people could cut deals to get a compromise to make it happen. But maybe the problem is that its backers are too intent on arguing that they should capture the benefits of free trade without having to help the losers, and so they just can't compromise.

So it's an opportunity cost argument? Fair enough.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think you are demonstrating why this stuff never happens. I'm making an argument that has nothing to do with theories about who deserves what, or whether a free trade regime is better than a protectionist regime. I'm just saying that if free trade really produces net social gain, you'd figure people could cut deals to get a compromise to make it happen. But maybe the problem is that its backers are too intent on arguing that they should capture the benefits of free trade without having to help the losers, and so they just can't compromise.

Didn't some cat named Coase do something about this, with cows and trains or something? And now there is, like, a theorem named after him? And there might (or might not) have been a Nobel Prize involved?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Didn't some cat named Coase do something about this, with cows and trains or something? And now there is, like, a theorem named after him? And there might (or might not) have been a Nobel Prize involved?

I don't think the problem is transactions costs, but you could persuade me otherwise. I think it's more like the fable of the dog and the cheese, except that this dog can't walk away with any cheese because he's trying to open his mouth up wide enough for two pieces of cheese.


And, please: Cats are so FB. This board is all about dogs.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't think the problem is transactions costs, but you could persuade me otherwise. I think it's more like the fable of the dog and the cheese, except that this dog can't walk away with any cheese because he's trying to open his mouth up wide enough for two pieces of cheese.


And, please: Cats are so FB. This board is all about dogs.

I didn't think that son of a bitch's* theory was about transaction costs, but it's been a while.

*i.e., dog's. Though I'm sure he's a very nice person. Is he dead?

[sgtclub]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...455972,00.html

At least the DEMS will now have an excuse . . .

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Didn't some cat named Coase do something about this, with cows and trains or something? And now there is, like, a theorem named after him? And there might (or might not) have been a Nobel Prize involved?

Hi Sweetie. Did you just use the word cat in reference to a person? Well ya know, they say if you sleep with a book under your pillow ya might wake up smarter. Uhm, whats under your pillow that has you doing that?

As for Coase, he basically advocated for certainty in the law AFAIK. Essentially, he posited that people allocate resources ineffiently trying to hedge risk when there is not certainty in the law. I guess it could be characterized as relating to transaction costs. I love the theory cuz it makes so much sense.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It seems obvious that this should happen because everyone would be better off. What is less obvious to me is why it doesn't happen. If free traders are so certain that their plan is the best, they should be willing to pay off the prospective losers to make it happen.[/i]

I think if they thought they would only have to pay off the prospective losers once, they would and write it off as a necessary evil or as cheaper in the long run. The problem is that once you pay off one group of losers, there is always another group that will pop up and claim that they, too, have suffered harm and demand the same sort of pay-off.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by bilmore

If someone is harmed by free trade, isn't that an admission that their past conduct was subsidized by over-regulation?

True, but totally irrelevant. The US is a democracy where people generally vote to maximize their slice of GDP, not to maximize GDP. My bet is that the least wealthy 80% of US residents would have less aggregate income if the US eliminated all its barriers to immigration and trade.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
True, but totally irrelevant. The US is a democracy where people generally vote to maximize their slice of GDP, not to maximize GDP. My bet is that the least wealthy 80% of US residents would have less aggregate income if the US eliminated all its barriers to immigration and trade.

I'm not sure "aggregate income" is solely the most relevant indicator either though. Their buying power relative to the price of goods, services, retirment etc... needs to be factored in. And if prices fall across the board, I'd bet that its the debt-leveraged who would suffer, not just the poorest 80% or 99%.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
The US is a democracy

Actually, the US is republic, not a democracy.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

I'm not sure "aggregate income" is solely the most relevant indicator either though. Their buying power relative to the price of goods, services, retirment etc... needs to be factored in. And if prices fall across the board, I'd bet that its the debt-leveraged who would suffer, not just the poorest 80% or 99%.

I agree. Correction: I bet average, median, and the interquartile range of income for the lowest earning 80% of legal US residents would fall after taking into account any benefits they would enjoy due to greater purchasing power.