In public?
Especially in public
When?
All the time
Sorry, I canât tell whether youâre being sarcastic or not.
That was my impression. Itâs all just for show and he knows full well none of it will ever happen.
Just watch. Itâs only a matter of time before Trump does an Anthony Weiner.
Not with those stubby fingers. You know what that means.
Just for show? Thereâs more to it than that. He spelled out his strategy for all to see in Art of the Deal, but still they donât see it coming. Itâs as if they donât read, or something.
Possibly he has a strategy. More than likely heâs just winging it, while throwing some fireworks into the crowd to make them go âooohâ and âaaahâ. Remember a good fraction of the people who voted for him arenât very smart. Heâs got to present things on their terms. Thereâs literally no point in telling the truth to people who will just get confused by it.
The working class isnât very smart? The people who actually make an economy go?
Iâd like to point out the fact that âa good fractionâ of people who voted/supported Hillary spent months protesting against a democratic election result, and are now ritually chanting:âHe will not divide usâ in front of a camera to signal their virtue to others, while at the same time calling everyone a nazi. Thatâs from some allegedly smart people.
OK, so a lot of the people who didnât vote for him are also not very smart.
You donât need to be smart to âmake the economy goâ. You just have to be honest and hardworking. Those qualities donât necessarily go hand-in-hand with an ability to understand the finer points of international diplomacy, economics and trade, or military matters. A lot of people, for example, simply donât get why protectionism doesnât work, either in theory or in practice. So Trump has to tell them that heâs going to implement protectionist policies, while (I hope) doing the exact opposite.
I think you know itâs not quite that simple and there are arguments for and against protectionism.
some might be dependent on what you are protecting and why. For example retention of user data currently for most countries they require companies retain data of their citizens within their border. Now that may be very inconvenient for Google or Twitter who wish to have a centralized storage facility in a tax free location in Ireland for example.
Might not be the example you had in mind, but this issue is probably worth billions of dollars to a company like Google. Itâs important enough for them to factor in who they will support in the election and who they will manipulate search results for. A political party can see how much Twitter/Google/Facebook can influence peoples opinions when they decide to put their fingers on the scale and scramble to accommodate in order to win approval and support.
The grovelling politician wins, as the MSM fawn over their candidate, the companies win as they get the regulations they want passed in the form of treaties like the TPP and everyone else looses out, as usual. At least thats how its supposed to play out.
Mick: I meant protectionism as default policy. That is, the idea that national industries should be âprotectedâ from competition, and that people should make everything locally unless thereâs an exceptional reason to do otherwise.
I cannot think of one single instance where this has worked in practice. Most of Africa is dirt-poor partly because of protectionism. The poorest countries in Asia are those with longstanding protectionist policies (Exhibit A being North Korea, of course).
The reason it doesnât work is very simple, but as I said, most people find it hard to understand: a country will do best if it focuses on what it does best, and lets other countries do what they do best. They then trade freely. If the Japanese are better at making cars, fine, let them make cars and let Americans buy their cars. Then the Japanese will have US dollars with which to buy American satellite launches or engineering consultancy. Itâs pointless for Canada to grow mangoes if they can be grown better in Indonesia; likewise, itâs pointless for Indonesians to try to grow apples instead of importing them from Canada.
This works for individuals as well as for countries. Itâs an old theory and itâs been borne out by empirical evidence.
Thatâs not to say that you should just fling your borders wide. Of course there are arguments for restricting certain kinds of trade, but thatâs not protectionism. For example, most countries heavily restrict the flow of weapons. Biosecurity is a big problem when trading food items or live animals. It would be ridiculous to open oneâs borders to products that are heavily subsidized (foreigners rightly object to buying American rice, soybeans and corn for precisely this reason).
One big issue is that shipping fuel is subsidized and there are no environmental regulations about ocean pollution (eg., the use of dirty fuel). Therefore, trade sometimes appears to be more beneficial than it actually is. But these examples donât nullify the general principle.
1 Like
I can agree with the idea that people with a better education will be more likely to understand how economy and politics work, but in practice this doesnât always turn out to be true. Itâs similar to what happened in the Uk for Brexit: whoâs more entitled to make a decision that will hugely impact the economy of a country? The working class or university students?
And as it happens in most elections, the losing side blamed it on the inability of the âwinnersâ to fully understand the issue. I still get upset when i think of some university students from London who said that reitred people shouldnât be allowed to vote because theyâre old and the future should be decided by younger generations. I mean ffs, some of those retired people fought or were born during World War 2, Iâd say they still have the right to express their opinion.
Thatâs a moot point, though. Democracy doesnât care about the level of instruction or smartness of people. It exists to defend the interests of the majority, now matter how smart or dumb or ill-educated they are (which can sometimes be a problem).
Regarding Trump, I think his aim is to push closer in direction of a free market with smaller government interventions. Due to what happened in the last decades to the countless factories closing down completely or moving abroad, heâs kinda forced to create a situation in which itâs convenient for American companies to make business within the country. I like the idea as a whole, but it will take some time to see exactly how he plans to do everything. Iâm strongly in favor of free market, but it will take some time (and some unpopular decisions*) to head in that direction.
- = heâll definitely lower taxes for companies, which the left will use to create a:âNO ONE THINKS OF THE WORKERS!!!â campaign, ignoring the fact that fewer taxes lead to more investments, more jobs and better salaries. I can already tell that all Iâll hear in the coming years is:âTrump only cares about his rich friendsâ.
1 Like
I agree with most of what you say Finley, although Im not sure the issue is quite as black and white. For example instead of North Korea which is facing heavy sanctions. South Korea might make a better exhibit. If you have been there you know you can walk around for days and not see a car that isnât Korean made. Here in Taiwan we pay a heavy tax for imported cars and Trump has indicated he would tax imports of cars at around 20%.
Is it a bad policy? maybe, Im not an economist. Seems like it is likely to keep the car producing in the US and save some jobs but will also increase the cost of the car to the consumer. Seems to me like its a mixed bag of good and bad in this case.
Mick: S.Korea is an interesting case. Their industrial expansion was not dissimilar to Taiwanâs. The crucial factor, I think, was the existence (in both cases) of a privileged class of industrialists who could pretty much do anything they wanted. Certainly in the case of S.K., where the line between government and industry was (still is) a very blurry one. They were able to import equipment and know-how as needed, without too many impediments, but they also had immense pressure from their sponsors to succeed (as well as an innate desire to excel). In the absence of this combination of assistance and pressure, industries that are protected become both complacent and demoralised.
Taiwan eventually abandoned their protectionist policy completely, and it was around that time that the economy really took off; I believe the Korean policy trajectory is/was similar. Personally, I would argue that Korea succeeded despite protectionism, not because of it. Had they been more open from the beginning, things would have worked faster and better.
I notice that apart from the airport, S.Korea looks a bit like the USSR without the fine historical architecture.
There are actually a couple of books (largely extolling the virtues of protectionism) about the S.Korean experience.
1 Like
What Mexico does best is drugs and murder.
What Syria does best is terrorism and chaos.
Some things are best not done, let alone exported. Supply AND demand. Never forget that second part.
I quite agree, but protectionism is one of the reasons why third-world shitholes canât export anything, and therefore canât provide enough employment for its citizens.
Trade must (in the long run) be symmetrical, because currency printed in country A is fundamentally useless in country B, except for buying products from country A. Therefore, if country A prevents its citizens from importing anything, itâs physically unable to export anything either. Thatâs an oversimplification as usual, but to a first approximation it is so.
The other reason is that third-world shitholes prevent their citizens from engaging in legitimate business. Drugs, murder, theft etc become popular career choices because the government will neither tax you nor shut you down. In some cases, government officials will actually say to you: that looks lucrative; I want in. In other words, society evolves in the direction of the pressures placed upon it. Trump would do well to address this by saying to (eg.) Mexico: fâing sort out your stupid laws, your stupid legal system, and your disgustingly corrupt Establishment, and weâll remove our restrictions on your citizens/trade. It could be done, but fundamentally the Mexicans just donât want to do it.
If Mexicans are treated fairly by their own government, theyâre (a) less likely to jump over the wall and (b) less likely to engage in illegal shit.
I think Trumpâs line will be:âFree market, while not being screwed from other countriesâ. Which is something I cannot blame him for. Weâve seen decades of European and American companies abandoning local production facilities in favor of countries where itâs cheaper and more convenient to produce stuff. The end result is that people can buy cheaper goods, and then they struggle to find a job.
South Korea grew to have a massive industrial base partly due to its old protectionist policies. Taiwan did something similar and China also does it but surreptitiously through enforcing non trade regulations.
Itâs certainly not so black and white to say protectionism is bad always.
Youâd have to say âbad for whom?â. Protection of Korean business conglomerates made some people unimaginably rich and powerful. The ordinary man in the street, not quite so much.
Similar kind of thing in post-USSR Russia.
1 Like