If protectionism increases the income of a Federation than why not go further - why not increase the incomes of all regions by putting on tariffs at each State border?
“debate needs to move away from trade balances and jobs — […] successful arguments might develop the “trade is a form of technological change” analogy. “
These both seem counterintuitive, even for someone initially sympathetic to the basic idea. How do you get a trade hawk to drop trade balances and jobs without going into full-length lecture on obscure economics? How do I make that analogy seem analogous?
Rather than engage in relatively recent history we should probably go back to the Industrial Revolution and Britain, the originator of much of this discourse. It was in the original home both of capitalism and the ideologies of free trade.
In the end it would be fair to say that the philosophy of free trade hasn’t had a salubrious effect on Britains relative standing in the world, in fact it began its relative decline soon after it started to tear down tariffs, meanwhile the US becomes the largest economic power in the world as an economic fortress.
What periods are you talking about? What are you using as a proxy of Britain's relative standing in the world? Why should economic productivity affect foreign policy? The reply might be interesting, but I don’t know what it means.
Britain's relative economic decline came after WWII. The 19th century was the heyday of free trade there, by my feeble understanding. So my first glance fact check is “huh?” The conclusion is interesting, but the evidence is unclear.
I think it’s emotional bias against the destruction part of creative destruction that drives anti-trade sentiment. Perhaps intensified by a preference for stasis over dynamism.
No, the “backlash” didn’t take two decades (since 1999) to emerge. Bush in 2002 imposed steel tariffs and it only got worse after that.
If protectionism increases the income of a Federation than why not go further - why not increase the incomes of all regions by putting on tariffs at each State border?
That’s probably an argument to absurdity.
“debate needs to move away from trade balances and jobs — […] successful arguments might develop the “trade is a form of technological change” analogy. “
These both seem counterintuitive, even for someone initially sympathetic to the basic idea. How do you get a trade hawk to drop trade balances and jobs without going into full-length lecture on obscure economics? How do I make that analogy seem analogous?
Rather than engage in relatively recent history we should probably go back to the Industrial Revolution and Britain, the originator of much of this discourse. It was in the original home both of capitalism and the ideologies of free trade.
In the end it would be fair to say that the philosophy of free trade hasn’t had a salubrious effect on Britains relative standing in the world, in fact it began its relative decline soon after it started to tear down tariffs, meanwhile the US becomes the largest economic power in the world as an economic fortress.
Huh?
Is that the level of reply here? Do better Dave. Or not Dave. Whatever you are.
What periods are you talking about? What are you using as a proxy of Britain's relative standing in the world? Why should economic productivity affect foreign policy? The reply might be interesting, but I don’t know what it means.
Britain's relative economic decline came after WWII. The 19th century was the heyday of free trade there, by my feeble understanding. So my first glance fact check is “huh?” The conclusion is interesting, but the evidence is unclear.
I think it’s emotional bias against the destruction part of creative destruction that drives anti-trade sentiment. Perhaps intensified by a preference for stasis over dynamism.
Given the mention of the ratio between high school graduates and university graduates, I had expected the quoted article to be even older.