11–20 of 265 posts
The free market is about creating a level playing field. Globalization was shit because because it did not create a level playing field, it created a subsidy for "developing" countries, at the expense of "developed" ones.
Its hilarious that people think that somehow free markets and libertarians are responsible
they knew it all along, but kept bs peddling(Taleb's term) anyway because everyone(even paul krugman) needs to eat
The big question I’ve been struggling with in regards to the free trade debate is this: Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? I increasingly don’t think that it is. Yes, we get products more cheaply. But those products are made in countries with fewer labor restrictions, often in places that are not democratic, where workers cannot vote for changing laws. We’re effectively saying we want democr…
Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). So you are damned if you don’t enjoy them, damned if you do (but a bit less). Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their la…
The big thing missing from this conversation is how the US/multi-national corporations use international organizations like the IMF and World Bank to force "structural adjustment" policies that end up degrading labor protections, forcing countries to privatize all gov't functions, etc. We have played a big role in the destruction of their "situation". Both historically through colonialism and still actively today with IOs and structural adjustment policies
Not to mention all the fucking coups the US enacted and supported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Outside hardline libertarian and establishment wall street circles, no serious intelectualls fell for the new free trade religion. Seeing Krugman admit as much in order to preserve a shred of credibility is a good sign. Dont be confused though, Krugman is stil a hack intellectual for hire.
The odd part about capitalist based policies on trade and skilled work force immigration is how much the left has supported them. The right has long held a "capitalist laissez-faire" approach to economic policy, and has been open about that. But what I cannot wrap my head around is the paradoxical message of the left. On the one hand they have long been known for supporting and using government intervention to protec…
Outside hardline libertarian and establishment wall street circles, no serious intelectualls fell for the new free trade religion. Seeing Krugman admit as much in order to preserve a shred of credibility is a good sign. Dont be confused though, Krugman is stil a hack intellectual for hire.
The big question I’ve been struggling with in regards to the free trade debate is this: Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? I increasingly don’t think that it is. Yes, we get products more cheaply. But those products are made in countries with fewer labor restrictions, often in places that are not democratic, where workers cannot vote for changing laws. We’re effectively saying we want democr…
> We're saying, we want, we're okay By 'we', you mean the multinational corporations that write 'free-trade' treaties (that usually encompass much more than just tariff reductions). Because voters tend to not get much say (and sometimes not even senators!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secr...
It might not seem like it's a choice, because the plurality of consumers have made the choice to go along, so if you do otherwise you're in a small group.
It's still a choice though. You either live the modern lifestyle, which includes (though reducing) consumption based on what could be classified in many cases slave labor. Or you choose a lifestyle that doesn't.
Outside hardline libertarian and establishment wall street circles, no serious intelectualls fell for the new free trade religion. Seeing Krugman admit as much in order to preserve a shred of credibility is a good sign. Dont be confused though, Krugman is stil a hack intellectual for hire.