tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post4429360809999468700..comments2023-04-16T23:43:11.235+08:00Comments on Mirror Signal Move: Rhetorical ReboundMike Faganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-87398083890193617002011-04-15T23:55:54.422+08:002011-04-15T23:55:54.422+08:00On decisions affecting other people - this is the ...On decisions affecting other people - this is the importance of the political recognition of rights (since rights are universal, they have two-way implications for either party, e.g. I have the right to private property, but so do other people and I must therefore consider possible externalities). Does there need to be some sort of "consensus"? Yes. Must that "consensus" arrive at coercion via democratic mechanisms? No. <br /><br /><i>"For Mexico prior to NAFTA, who do you see as carrying the burden of these costs? And specifically, what are these costs?"</i><br /><br />I'd have to read up a bit on Mexico to be specific.<br /><br /><i>"I would assume you will respond by saying the state takes money from working taxpayers, and gives it to the poor/peasants/farmers, keeping them on life support."</i><br /><br />That might have been one dynamic, but more than likely it'll have been the poor and the peasants who were exploited too, since they tend to be the politically weakest groups - even the "protections" dished out to the poor in other countries tend to have perverse, and perniciously exploitative aspects. Farmers are often more politically protected than other groups, but in the case of Mexico I'd have to read up. <br /><br /><i>"...is there any way that the Mexican government could have eased the transition..."</i><br /><br />Possibly yes, but that would likely have created other problems (e.g. the "me too" effect - the State "helps out" one industry and the others start clamouring for help too). It's not all a question of what the Mexican government could have done or not done since U.S. government policies are heavily consequential for Mexico too e.g. the prohibitions on drugs like cannabis incentivizing the narcotics business with its particularly ugly "externalities"; the subsidies and manipulation of U.S. agriculture; and the unsustainable politicization of healthcare, education and housing - all of which provide incentives for illegal immigrants from Mexico. <br /><br />The Mexican government could perhaps have done this or that differently, but they were never in a position to do anything about U.S. policies.Mike Faganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-13860288315645312622011-04-15T23:24:37.466+08:002011-04-15T23:24:37.466+08:00On your first point. But isn't there some nee...On your first point. But isn't there some need for a consensus based on popular support for a society to exist? To take a simple example. Let's say I want to start a business--what if I setup shop inconveniently, near a popular location, obstructing traffic or just "getting in the way". Is this okay, or does some type of consensus need to be reached by the majority regarding what can be done, and where? If there is no 'voting process', who then has the right to make a decision that will have effects on other people?<br /><br />OK, your second point: You say that protectionism will cause costs and consequences over time. For Mexico prior to NAFTA, who do you see as carrying the burden of these costs? And specifically, what are these costs? I would assume you will respond by saying the state takes money from working taxpayers, and gives it to the poor/peasants/farmers, keeping them on life support. <br /><br />Lastly, I'm curious what you have to say about 'transitional economies'. For instance (and to stay on the same topic), when Mexico signed NAFTA, many new that imports from U.S. Agribusiness would eliminate Mexico farmers. But, the cost of food went up for Mexicans, and the farmers lost their jobs. How does this (free trade) benefit Mexico, when the majority of their population worked in the countryside? And, to get back to my transitional economy question: is there any way that the Mexican government could have eased the transition, providing some sort of consolation and investment for the Mexican farmer's future? For instance, perhaps by opening up Mexico's economy to U.S. investors, Mexican farmers would in return gain rights and access to some agricultural technology that the U.S. possesses, as not to displace so many of their people people. Perhaps this would have been in the U.S.'s interest as well, considering a result of NAFTA was increased illegal immigration problems for the U.S.. <br /><br />-Derek-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-61951026671473542792011-04-15T22:22:08.089+08:002011-04-15T22:22:08.089+08:00Derek,
Certainly: that fourth paragraph exemplifi...Derek,<br /><br />Certainly: that fourth paragraph exemplifies two points on which I would reject Rodrik's prescriptions. <br /><br />First, his royal "we" and insistence upon "popular support" is the democratic endoresement of coercion, i.e. an instance of coercion is justified if enough people agree with it. My objection to this is that my life is not the rightful property of other people to violate with coercion, whatever their number. Simple. <br /><br />Second, it is disingenuous for Rodrik to claim this: <i>"If globalization’s boosters are right, the clamor for protection will fail for lack of evidence or support."</i> Under free trade, some people will lose jobs and others (often in other countries) will gain them - nobody disputes this, nobody claims that real people will not suffer under free trade conditions. Even though the overall economy is likely to "benefit" from free trade, the "economy" is not a person; it is made up of millions of real people some of whom will suffer and find it difficult to cope, whilst others may find the adjustment easier. <br /><br />What people like Rodrik sometimes fail to consider, however, are the costs of protectionism, who these costs typically fall on and what their secondary consequences are over time.<br /><br />One reason (though certainly not the only one) why I support free trade is because I believe the costs of protectionism outweigh the costs of free trade, though I recognize that settling such a issue on an empirical basis is out of the question - unless we compare extremes (e.g. Hong Kong vs North Korea). <br /><br />On the Mexico quote: wellbeing <i>is</i> the point of trade - i.e. people would not trade if they did not think it beneficial in some way. But again nobody claims that trade alone is the answer to everybody's problems - the people in Mexico suffer from a lot more than just lack of trading opportunities, so it should therefore come as no surprise that increasing trade between Mexico and the rest of North America is not going to solve all of their problems. As you said yesterday - Mexico is a "mess"...Mike Faganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-4415160145233515562011-04-15T00:24:27.707+08:002011-04-15T00:24:27.707+08:00Michael,
His article seemed to be an advertisemen...Michael,<br /><br />His article seemed to be an advertisement for his book that was released later in 2011. I'm sure he elaborates on his position in his book.<br /><br />I was curious if you would care to comment on his paragraph #4?<br /><br />4."We should therefore accept that countries may uphold national rules – tax policies, financial regulations, labor standards, or consumer health and safety rules – and may do so by raising barriers at the border if necessary, when trade demonstrably threatens domestic practices enjoying broad popular support. If globalization’s boosters are right, the clamor for protection will fail for lack of evidence or support. If wrong, there will be a safety valve in place to ensure that contending values – the benefits of open economies versus the gains from upholding domestic regulations – both receive a proper hearing in public debates."<br /><br />Also, one more from an article about the failure of NAFTA which I recently read:<br /><br />"The Mexican experience reminds us that increased trade and investment should not be the end objectives of economic integration. Instead, they should be considered as possible means to improve social welfare."<br /><br />-Derek-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com