81–90 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starting to see a consensus that one of the biggest drawbacks to free trade is the loss of skills. It is great to get cheap steel from China and great for China to sell steel at a profit, but it sucks losing the engineering jobs. But what truly is awful is now there is hardly anyone who knows how to run a steel mill anymore in the US. The US might not always be friends with China, but the US will always need stee…
The trick is convincing customers to pay more for a domestic product. Consumers don't really seem to care in large enough numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand free trade stops wars. If each party is specialized in a needed item that the other side no longer knows how to produce, its much harder to go to war. The fact that the US will always need steel helps ensure that they _will_ always be friends with China, so long as they also specialize in something that China needs.
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
Their inability to produce high octane gasoline was also instrumental in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, as it meant their aircraft could not perform up to the level of the Allied aircraft.
The Japanese in WW2 also failed to secure a supply of oil, with similar results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand free trade stops wars. If each party is specialized in a needed item that the other side no longer knows how to produce, its much harder to go to war. The fact that the US will always need steel helps ensure that they _will_ always be friends with China, so long as they also specialize in something that China needs.
Though China's trajectory is to not need the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US can produce large numbers of N95 masks. What we cannot do is produce large numbers tomorrow. If you are willing to bankroll me I'll setup a factory and in 2 years I'll produce any arbitrary number of N95 masks you care. There are two obvious problems above. First, 2 years, will we even need N95 masks in two years? Second, I said I'd make them, but I cannot promise I can make them cheaper than China can.
You are severely underestimating the necessary level of manufacturing "culture", logistics and processes that were lost when we outsourced manufacturing. For many things, including probably making N95 masks, we can no longer just decide to make them now without reconstructing that entire logistical tail, all the myriad of small manufacturers, and train people with specialized know-how and the years of experience that…
"Comparative advantage" has always embodied, to me, the difficulty with electoral politics. It's a fairly easy concept, taught fairly widely, yet almost no one really understands it and views the world through that lens. Most voters are operating without an understanding of comparative advantage. Now apply that to dozens of other concepts in other fields. Same situation. It's depressing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It turns out that there is very little scope to relax the axioms: for almost any voting scheme, there are circumstances where you do better by not voting your true preferences. See the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. Pretty much the only scheme that avoids this is "choose a voter at random and elect the candidate they like best".
>for almost any voting scheme, there are circumstances where you do better by not voting your true preferences. Which isn't a very important consideration compared to other attributes of election methods. Usually, coordination and signalling problems make tactical voting inadvisable. But even when tactical voting does work, it's not necessarily a problem. The source of all of Arrow's nonsense is treating an election…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
The first 50 years of that peace was Europe being split between two nuclear superpowers. So the “peace” (more like a standoff) isn’t entirely our (European) fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
The Germans did suffer terribly from shortages, particularly of petroleum, during the war. In fact, one could argue fairly well that the shortage of petroleum ensured their defeat. Their inability to produce high octane gasoline was also instrumental in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, as it meant their aircraft could not perform up to the level of the Allied aircraft. The Japanese in WW2 also failed to secure a supply o…