tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post13542636022084620..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: "Industrial Complexes" and the Great RelocationNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-19177280469139012182011-10-11T23:37:52.644-04:002011-10-11T23:37:52.644-04:00So a tariff on Chinese imports would be a favor to...So a tariff on Chinese imports would be a favor to Mexico?Luke Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11290760894780619646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-47751341629826671002011-10-03T16:44:26.766-04:002011-10-03T16:44:26.766-04:00So I take it you don't subscribe to Milton Fri...So I take it you don't subscribe to Milton Friedman's "subsidy shmubsidy" argument? By that, I mean his idea that the U.S. should (this was back in the Free to Choose Series) unilaterally reduce tariffs, even if a country has anti-competitive subsidies because we'd be hurting ourselves. Undervaluation of a currency is basically a big subsidy to a country's exports, as I figure it.<br /><br />I do have a question about the "first" cause of such an undervaluation. The way I'm thinking of it, certain international organizations (who shall remain nameless) have imposed harsh austerity on such developing nations when they require assistance, so the large trade surplus and the attendant large capital account deficit may be partially a response to that issue, making sure that a country never need rely upon the international institution(s) for funds and the connected conditionalities. In which case, the U.S. would be more or less punishing a country for pursuing its interests and avoiding external control, in effect, if indirectly. Any comments on that possibility?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14235846531323511190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38440227830498385892011-10-03T11:11:18.874-04:002011-10-03T11:11:18.874-04:00I think you're roughly on target until the las...I think you're roughly on target until the last bit about East Asia being the 'natural' high tech hub. Population density is just not as determinitve has you're asserting, why is Germany the 'natural' heavy industry hub?<br /><br />Industrial development has much more to do with path dependency than people per square mile (though that's a piece of it). See MIT's Cesar Hidalgo's work for more:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/6hbhrz7<br /><br />Dani Rodrik has done a couple of posts on the de-industrialization of Latin America. <br /><br />http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2010/09/growth-reducing-structural-change.htmlOGTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-75307700240257886422011-10-03T10:53:11.193-04:002011-10-03T10:53:11.193-04:00In that case, we should probably all move there, t...In that case, we should probably all move there, too.marcelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78352780699735856072011-10-03T02:17:22.791-04:002011-10-03T02:17:22.791-04:00How do you know that we shouldn't be subsidizi...How do you know that we shouldn't be subsidizing China's clusters? There are more people in China, might make sense to have everything there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com