home
And? (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:36:26 PM EST
Explain to me how that contradicts his previous writings?

He seems to emphatically deny it.

[ Parent ]

Yes, he does seem to emphatically deny it (none / 0) (#47)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:48:07 PM EST
Just as fair traders deny that they are opposed to free trade too, and just as fair traders deny that what they are engaged in is protectionism.

Apparently you don't believe the fair traders, why do you believe Blinder?  If you believe Blinder, and he says he is a free trader and not asking for protectionism, how come you don't believe the fair traders?

[ Parent ]

Because I read what he wrote (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:53:58 PM EST
which I just quoted to you.

Do you read the links you provide?

[ Parent ]

Near as I can tell, by reading (none / 0) (#49)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:19:36 PM EST
DeLong, Krugman, Rodrik, and the links that DeLong provides, the common view today is that Krugman and Blinder are coming around on free vs. fair trade.

I think DeLong himself is a lot more wobbly on NAFTA and has said so.  (Though perhaps for different reasons.)

Certainly Blinder's two articles caused a big hue and cry and regardless of his statements that he is a free trader till the end, lots of people questioned his sanity or questioned his commitment.  Just as you question the fair traders that say they are not for protectionism.

And fair traders change (as in the population of fair traders change) over time.

When I got my MBA, I was pretty much a free trader too.  That's what is taught in our ivory towers.  And so I understand and agree that industry protection, and protectionism is not a good thing.  Which is why I was not an industry protectionist then.

But my actual real world experience as an engineer, along with my micro-econ understanding of incentives, along with my understanding and support of the carbon tax leads me to today's fair trade positions: we are in a race to the bottom, destroying all of the wage, health, retirement, safety, vacation, environmental protections that our fathers and grandfathers literally died for.  And we're doing that because our system is providing the wrong economic incentives, because we allow our higher costs that we see as a reasonable cost of production forced to compete with the lower costs of productions of populations that do not get the benefits of worker safety, living wages, environmental protection, 40 hour weeks, health care, etc.

That's a subsidy we provide, not a tariff we charge.

Fair trade is about stopping those subsidies by recognizing the externalities.

I understand little of it beyond seeing jobs in my occupation wither over 20 years and the four courses I took getting my MBA and beyond reading DeLong, Krugman, Rodrik, and others (*) on a daily basis and try to glean what I can out of their jargon.  (Which is what I was doing when apparently you felt I should have been reading the race/iq blogs.)

* Black, Sawicky, Drezner, Cowen, Crooked Timber, Calculated Risk, you know, all those guys.

[ Parent ]

Delong? (none / 0) (#52)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:27:08 PM EST
The Rubin defender?

Dude, do you read these people?

Sawicky definitely. And Stiglitz is the leading economist in that school.

And? They also do not deny what was written.

they argue for other reasons, the optimal efficient trade policy is not the right one.

See, you never got my point.

The point here is let's move past the ignorqance on trade and discuss the REAL reasons why you oppose free trade.

Some people have good ones worth discussing.

You decded to cite Krugman and Blinder. Silly of you.

[ Parent ]

Actually, you cited Blinder.... But... (none / 0) (#54)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 04:07:01 PM EST
You cited blinder with an old reference, I brought you up to date on the current state of Blinder, and even though it's clear that many people now understand he is not the free trader he once was (which was my point) you have to force his newer views into your old frame of reference.

But more astonishingly, this is just like the iq/race thread.  I tell you, complete with links, exactly why I have come to the conclusion I have come to, and you still stand there and say project some agenda of your own on me.

Last time, I was a racist, and so was everyone else who thought the various questions weren't settled yet and worth looking into, regardless of any of their statements or behavior.

This time, you have me, contra to any post I have made, into still not willing to tell you my real reasons.

I've given you everything you've refused to give me, my reading list, my "credentials", citations, my experience, and you don't like that you can't force me into your neat little boxes so you refuse to believe what I have written.

So let's see the score:

Blinder, you believe although everyone else tells you different, and even reading his article should tell you different.

The fair traders you don't believe, though their rhetoric and behavior matches their statements.

Me, who you can actually engage in a conversation with, you don't believe.

Stop playing e-psychiatrist BTD, you're not very good at it, and it's a disingenuous way to argue.

[ Parent ]

When I read the fair traders (none / 0) (#50)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:20:46 PM EST
I read that they are not for protectionism, and they're not!  Why don't you believe that?

[ Parent ]
Oy (none / 0) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:24:20 PM EST
Because they support trade barriers.

Did Blinder? No. He expressly said he did not.

Honestly, I hope you are better at your job than you are at reading articles.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft