tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post4397413624377050046..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: On the Distributional Consequences of ProtectionismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-3748807188914722732016-03-14T20:24:42.773-04:002016-03-14T20:24:42.773-04:00"...even if lots of stuff changes in the bask..."...even if lots of stuff changes in the basket of preferences and the income distribution, you can still make a plausible argument if most of the changes are small..."<br /><br />If I catch your drift, your argument is similar to one made, I think, by Hicks. The idea was that if the many small negative changes were randomly distributed, they would tend to cancel each other out. The problem with that argument is that they are not random, they tend to be systematic and cumulative.<br /><br />Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-48682182838503484382016-03-14T16:42:51.825-04:002016-03-14T16:42:51.825-04:00Dear S'Man, Though I am pretty sympathetic to ...Dear S'Man, Though I am pretty sympathetic to critique of econ (and am not part of the tribe myself) something strikes me a wrong about your argument. From how I see it, there is limited use to be gained from arguing the axioms or assumptions are wrong. Rather, the relevant question is whether there is a model that doesn't generate outrageous errors. <br /><br />How I would state what I think your argument is (though correct me if I butcher it) if I were trying to make it is that the increase in cash from trade is weighed against other preferences such as employment, employment security, working conditions. (cash and stuff related to unemployment are the things that seem likely to change most from trade, though I will also grant you environmental externalities). <br /><br />I guess my point is, even if lots of stuff changes in the basket of preferences and the income distribution, you can still make a plausible argument if most of the changes are small.<br />CheersWallflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852136998154262919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-53651906782407516472016-03-10T11:55:07.971-05:002016-03-10T11:55:07.971-05:00Rich - thanks. David Brooks a while back decided ...Rich - thanks. David Brooks a while back decided to attack these countries as being too socialistic. Of course Brooks never bothers to check basic facts when he writes his usual weird stuff for the NY Times. Maybe we should pay more attention to how other nations address these matters. ProGrowthLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17138489390594441753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-82116577297005689922016-03-10T11:34:32.906-05:002016-03-10T11:34:32.906-05:00"how the Scandinavian countries have been doi..."how the Scandinavian countries have been doing things"<br /><br />A niche strategy.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-556629697864193852016-03-10T11:16:25.377-05:002016-03-10T11:16:25.377-05:00Well, this is more or less how the Scandanavian co...Well, this is more or less how the Scandanavian countries have been doing things since WWII. They have generally been very open to international trade (not always as open to capital movements), and have specialized in high-skill manufacturing and design exports (these are the "winners") while maintaining a comprehensive, universal, and generous system of social insurance funded in part through progressive taxation (quite a lot of the funding comes from taxes on mid-range incomes). This social insurance system includes a dramatically better-funded portfolio of "active labor market policies" than anything the US has ever put together, the purpose of which is to enable workers dislocated by changing markets to shift as quickly and costlessly into new jobs in new industries. I'd just note for the record that the costs we're discussing here are in most respects a consequence of trade, as opposed to just international trade. The argument for increased international trade (that it facilitates greater specialization and thus higher productivity) also applies domestically, as does the argument for a social democratic system to equitably distribute the burdens and benefits from such economic cooperation.Rich Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11768615623375545324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-3328635544048285682016-03-09T20:01:59.719-05:002016-03-09T20:01:59.719-05:00"Mark is noting that it is theoretically poss..."Mark is noting that it is theoretically possible to impose a tax equal to 8% of the income of the winners and rebate it to the losers."<br /><br />No, it is not. <br /><br />The reason is that "income" is not a consistent yardstick against which the "15%" and the "8%" can be measured to arrive at those supposed proportions. Because people's bundle of preferences differ from each other's (otherwise there would be no exchange) the total amount of income will change if the same quantity of goods is distributed differently.<br /><br />This is a paradox that has no solution, so instead of admitting its insoluble nature, economists simply PRETEND that aggregate income remains constant with different distributions. That is they ASSUME that all economic agents have the same preferences... and thus that there should be no basis for exchange.<br /><br />Of course, if economists say it three times it is true so let's not worry about the egregious flaw at the bottom of the potential Pareto improvement compensation principle (assuming that we have long forgotten that those ersatz Paretian economic agents were already immortal anyway).Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-85146537480925592772016-03-09T19:27:01.296-05:002016-03-09T19:27:01.296-05:00Which came first? Free trade or the slave trade? T...Which came first? Free trade or the slave trade? To what extent did modern <i>ideas</i> about trade evolve out of conditions in which colonial plantation slave labor was a cornerstone of international trade? <br /><br />How can we think about trade with any integrity while refusing to acknowledge the material and intellectual foundations upon which modern international trade was erected? To what extent are the evasions and deceptions about the distributional effects of trade <i>built in</i> to the received discourse about trade rather than an invention or distortion of the Republicans?Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.com