Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
I'm not actually sure what is on the table at the moment, the only current protectionist policy that I am sure of is the steel tariffs. And it is pretty clear which workers would be "hurt" by (rightly) opening that industry to competition. I suspect that there are agriculture segments that could have be in similar circumstances.
|
If all steel tariffs and quotas and agricultural subsidies were ended tomorrow it would negatively impact less than one percent of the population. So the point being that most of the "globalization pain" that will be caused in the future will be done by market forces, not by any changes in US trade law. Ty seemed to be implying that (and hence the hypos of sixty percent of the US population being negatively effected by free trade and the discussion of the massive negative impact of free trade on wage earners) 1) I was promoting lots of liberalization of trade policy, that such changes in policy was going to have a massive negative impact on the US citizenry and I didn't seem to care about the massive negative impact the policies I was promoting were going to create 2) that there was a lot of liberalization that could and would be affirmatively done by the US government in the future and that liberalization would have a lot of negative effects on the US citizenry that the government should deal with.
Yes some massive dislocations may be coming, but not because of any affirmative steps taken by the US government.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Adder But anyway, perhaps we can see where you are coming from. Do you support job training and a social safetynet for those whose jobs are displaced?
|
Yes I do.
Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
Surely you recognize that the longer-term society benefits come at the expense of short-term hardship for those caught in the transition, right?
|
Yes. But I also realize that the entire capitalist system is based on long term benefits derived from increased efficiencies that when brought about cause extreme short term hardship on those who are replaced by the more efficient.
The same arguments that are used against free trade are used against capitalism in general, and the same arguments used in support of protectionism are the same arguments used to support socialism. Capitalism isn’t perfect, and needs to be regulated and monitored, but just because people get hurt in capitalism, and there is a lot of pain caused by the system, does not mean it should be replaced by socialism, or infused with socialist elements because socialism and socialist elements always cause much more pain than benefit. In the same vein, free trade isn’t perfect, there is a lot of pain caused by the system, but that doesn’t mean it should be replaced with protectionism, or infused with protectionist elements, because such protectionist elements always cause more harm than good.
Threaded Mode