These questions need to be answered: Why should I have to pay a great deal more money for a Honda simply because GM and Ford make shitty cars? Is it fair to place restrictions on imported food simply because agricultural corporations here cannot compete? The point is, again, that other people are hurt when trade is not free. Are those who benefit from a lack of free trade somehow worth more?
An advantage was granted to some people under the tariff and subsidy regime that should not have been granted. Others -- wealthy, poor and middle-class -- were handed the cost in the form of higher prices and decreased living standards. It's all well and good to discuss Pareto optimality, but Pareto optimality was flushed down the toilet the moment governments decided that certain businesses and industries deserved shelter from competition. If you want to live in a world of original Pareto optimality, we're going to have to ban most, if not all, government functions. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Again, there are people losing right now in the name of "protecting" others.
If you want to live in a world of original Pareto optimality, we're going to have to ban most, if not all, government functions.
Absolutely. Attempting to apply theoretical economics with its silly assumptions that don't match anything in the real world isn't a good idea.
I'm coming to the view that the best that theoretical economics can do at the moment is give us an idea of what might be possible, not what is. That's true of most system sciences really.
Perhaps these conditions exist in a parallel world described by theoretical physics inhabited by sentient, sociopathic supercomputers. It is not, however, the world you or I live in. No raindrop believes itself responsible for the flood that follows.
A cost-benefit analysis along the lines of "I will benefit more than you will be hurt therefore let's do it", justified on "I could compensate you for your loss and still come ahead, but I don't have to", seems wrong-headed. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I'm not disagreeing with that. But you still have not answered my charge about people who are hurt by the lack of free trade -- the people who lose a chunk of their living standards because of the government providing an unfair advantage to others. Set Pareto, Kaldor and Hicks aside for a moment. The real question here is of whether or not it is far to give some workers an artificial advantage over others.
By placing tariffs on imports, or giving subsidies to exporters, governments redistribute wealth -- yes, eliminating Pareto optimality -- from those who would be better off under free trade to those who would not. Why should those people be valued more by the government than other citizens? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
What if one rich guy would be better off and everyone else would be reduced to penury. Would redistributive tariffs be ok then?
<stamps feet>
You almost made me spit my coffee out with that. From this point, onward, assume that I'm using "mights" and "maybes" where needed.
To answer your question, I would obviously support redistribution in large quantities under that example. But, needless to say, this is not what seems likely to happen, unless we look only at a few pieces of the picture -- namely, the businessman who outsourced and the workers who lost their jobs. (In fact, on this one occasion, I'll guarantee that this would not happen.) But, again, that ignores the Chinese who, at this point in time, seem likely to gain those jobs, as well as ignoring the other (Americans, Europeans, Guatemalans, Japanese, Aussies, whatever) who will likely see the cost of food, cars, clothing, computers, etc., fall, thereby raising their living standards. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
my coffee
Excuse me. That should read "my colored water that Americans call coffee," according to Migeru. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
But you only have 4 or 5 espressos a day, which I suppose is ok. One in your capuccino for breakfast, a mid-morning coffee, one after lunch, one after your (early) dinner. Matches the Spanish pattern (the last one happens at tea-time way before our (late) dinner. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Several cups of Italian coffee in the morning would kill you.
Being of British and Irish ancestry, I have little doubt that you're right. But my ancestors' side of Europe has better beer. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Warm bear, ugh! guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Coming back to this a little late - I suspect this one fact on its own explains a huge amount of US politics and culture.
What would be your reaction? No raindrop believes itself responsible for the flood that follows.
Both are experimental questions. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Social Science, especially economics, is collectively at the point where physics was while Newton lived, or where Biology was when Darwin made his first trip on the Beagle. We've found some empirical correlations. We have a few theories that seem internally consistent. Do we have great working models of real economies or real social systems? No. We know more about the weather. No raindrop believes itself responsible for the flood that follows.
If people wanted to institute new trade barriers I'd probably oppose it on the grounds that not only you hurt some people but the likely aggregate loss (from comparative advantage) would prevent you from compensating the losers.
So let's just wrap up my position with this:
Now if I could only get off my lazy ass long enough to read some of those textbooks.... Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
And, yes, there is big money in textbooks, if the author is well known and can, therefore, convince other professors to assign it to students. I'm sure Krugman, Mankiw and Romer have earned plenty on textbooks, alone. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Write it then: I'll complain if I think you missed anything!
Fair enough. Will do. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
The amendment should state that private property cannot be taken without the owner's agreement. Period. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
