tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post922844362945275971..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: a16z podcast on tradeNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-15268789999045030522017-09-30T09:09:41.808-04:002017-09-30T09:09:41.808-04:00Two other possible arguments that could be used:
...Two other possible arguments that could be used:<br /><br />Environmental argument: the small value of tariffs plays the role of a sort of "internalization" of the environmental externalities involved (CO2 emissions, etc) in transporting products from one far country to the other. <br />They might no be designed with that purpose in mind, and thus they are not consistent (ex: proportional to the actual damage done, which depends on the distance, method of transportation, etc.) and insufficient, but still lowering them to foster trade would hurt the environment more than the value created by the extra trade, and thus lead to a less efficient allocation of resources.<br /><br />Social argument: international trade creates value and brings prosperity, but it can also foster inequalities (there are several mechanisms why this could - and does - happen). In a world where there is abundance but very poorly distributed (with the bottom 90% of the population holding about as much wealth as 1%), maybe fostering trade even further shouldn't be the right way to go. João Vascohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14810948198773329192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-29278561913749504342017-09-21T23:07:53.991-04:002017-09-21T23:07:53.991-04:00Funny, point 1 is a Joan Robinson argument, and po...Funny, point 1 is a Joan Robinson argument, and points 2 & 3 are Nicholas Kaldor arguments...Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841689865415250256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21294812211288920152017-09-19T22:05:53.164-04:002017-09-19T22:05:53.164-04:00Floxo is right. Without industry any country is no...Floxo is right. Without industry any country is non-developed, as poor as Armenia, Bangladesh or Chad. There is a perfect correlation between degree of industrialization and long-term economic health. No living economist is aware of what happened before 1995 in economic history, nor does any one know anything at all about the East Asian development model. The knowledge of the ancients was tossed aside and so the West returns to the dark ages -- wake me in a thousand years when someone in Europe or the US gets a clueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-14223585552736197692017-09-11T08:04:43.104-04:002017-09-11T08:04:43.104-04:00Decades ago, the developed economies should have i...Decades ago, the developed economies should have instituted protectionist measures to defend against the poor outcomes associated with free trade and globalization. That they did not do so is a tribute to ideological commitment over commonsense and basic theory. Economists are themselves responsible for the resultant mess, including such perverse outcomes as Trump and Brexit.<br /><br />Here is what happened. Industrialization of the huge population of S.E Asia caused a global imbalance in economic rent (the return on capital) and wages. The developed economies had high wages and low rents, while the emerging markets had low wages and high rents. Free trade and globalization allowed the reallocation of domestic capital to the emerging markets. In consequence, the developed economies suffered slow growth, stagnant wages, rising inequality and poor productivity as investment in domestic productive capacity declined.<br /><br />Most likely the damage is long term. The loss of manufacturing to the temporary global imbalance in factor prices will be permanent. In the future, it is likely gravity effects will dominate forming large industrial hubs centered in Asia. The developed economies will be sidelined into services that tend to feature low productivity growth. Even apart from the loss of domestic employment opportunities, the unnecessary loss in technological and industrial capacity is incalculable. <br />Floxohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13316390364883183117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78186692685780984352017-09-11T06:57:30.250-04:002017-09-11T06:57:30.250-04:00" I would like to see more efforts by the U.S..." I would like to see more efforts by the U.S. to nudge domestically focused companies to compete in world markets."<br /><br />Do you see that as a zero sum game benefiting just the US, or would it nudge other countries into innovation/efficiency by having to compete with US companies? Likewise do you see lots of countries pushing their companies to export as mutually beneficial or destructive?Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14014996272817759191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-70627271889865888502017-09-10T21:47:19.079-04:002017-09-10T21:47:19.079-04:00"I would like to see more efforts by the U.S...."I would like to see more efforts by the U.S. to nudge domestically focused companies to compete in world markets."<br /><br />And the easiest way to survive as a 'domestically focused' company is to have the government protect you from foreign competition. It seems to me that your third point could easily be seen as an argument FOR free trade.Steamboat Lionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12645780586629716757noreply@blogger.com