Printable View
No, he's trying to claim that GGT's nationalist economics is invidious. And the historical pattern has been that it is invidious. The rationale for free trade has always been that protectionism encourages an escalating series of tit-for-tat policies from everyone else in a pattern that ultimately hurts everyone, to a fairly significant degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Okay, but what does that have to do with racism in this case?
See also:
Quote:
The main point here is that GGT's position has bad and/or dangerous consequences, eg. poorer long-term social outcomes.
I think his point was that disadvantaging people because of where they live is no better than disadvantaging people because of their race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Does he also think he should spend as much on a family in Scotland as he does on himself and his fiancée? Does he also think that the UK should spend as much on the welfare of the rest of the world as it does on its own? We choose our preferred groups in many different ways. Racism is a particularly disturbing way to do it, for several reasons. Family bonds, geographical proximity, shared language, shared culture (beliefs, values, traditions, etc), greater level of interdependence, whatever... these are other grounds on which our preferences and loyalties are based, and I find it absurd to cast all of these as being no better than racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Moreover, given RB's other views on eg. the poor, the unfortunate, etc, I'm surprised he seems to have forgotten that people in other countries can simply improve their lots in other ways, eg. by moving to England and taking the jobs the chavs won't.
I find similar rhetoric in US politics to be frustrating, though perhaps not racist. Throughout the State of the Union as well as the Republican primaries, all of the politicians/candidates involved have argued that the US needs to 'win' wrt manufacturing, R&D, etc. I certainly agree with the sentiment that we should try to improve the US' competitiveness in the world on a number of fronts. But the rhetoric underpinning these calls for competitiveness assume that the global economy is a zero-sum game, and the US should be on top. I personally like the US having a rich and powerful economy, but I'd be absolutely delighted if the rest of the world had the same productivity and standard of living as Americans, which would have the obvious effect of making the US economy largely irrelevant in the world (what, 5% or so of the global population?). It's pretty crazy for someone to view this as an 'us or them' phenomenon, where other countries need to but punished or kept from developing new technologies and wealth just so that we can remain king of the hill.
Obviously the reality is far more complex than this black or white caricature, but I find it very frustrating that US politics needs to use such blatantly wrong rhetoric at all. It's being used as an excuse for mercantilist and isolationist policy masquerading as 'competitiveness'. And no, I don't blame a single party for this issue - it's a happily bipartisan clusterfuck.
I'm not sure I agree with you Wiggin. At the heart of all of that rhetoric is really the notion of being in control. When you have all the influence, and a lot of the economic power your country is safer, and you can shape the world the way you want it to be. I think it's understandable America would want to keep this position, that position is probably preferable (for America) than one where all countries are on equal footing. What's good for the wolrd as a whole? your desire of free trade is.
Any particular reason for the moral equivalence there? It's pretty obvious which party is for free trade in the US and which one is not. Sure, there are some Democrats who buck the trend, and there are plenty of isolationist Republicans (the Tea Partyers aren't exactly fans of free trade either), but the overall trend is pretty clear (especially when you look at support and opposition to specific free trade agreements in Congress). The Democratic Party relies on unions and environmentalists far more than does the GOP, and those groups are both staunchly against most trade agreements. The populists in both parties tend to be against free trade, but that doesn't cancel out the previous point.
There's lots of Rs who support protectionist measures (often under the guise of security or jobs or whatever) and plenty of Ds who support free trade. And it's not just voting for free trade agreements - things like labeling China a currency manipulator got a lot of bipartisan support in the House, though thankfully the R leadership had some balls and managed to block a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
More broadly, it's not the specific positions that matter as much to me; on the balance, you're probably right that more Rs support free trade than Ds (though it's not by any means a clear delineation). What matters to me is the rhetoric that implies a zero sum game in international trade, and both R and D leaders are guilty of that. There isn't a race to 'win' here, there's only lives to better and economies to grow. We are not in competition with other countries, but neither R nor D are willing to acknowledge this.
Like I said, there are anti-free trade people on both sides, but only the DNC is dominated by them. Go look at ratings given by organizations that care about trade (whether for or against it) to members of both parties. The average Republican is consistently and significantly more in favor of free trade than an average Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I think the difference is that if you subtract the populists on both sides, Republicans might be convinced into supporting isolated anti-free trade measures (e.g. steel tariff, ethanol subsidies), while most Democrats can be easily convinced that all trade is bad, particularly with developing countries. I'm referring to the politicians and political establishment by the way; most members of the public aren't fans of free trade. Just saw a poll from 2010 that showed that only a quarter of Americans believed that globalization was beneficial for the US.Quote:
More broadly, it's not the specific positions that matter as much to me; on the balance, you're probably right that more Rs support free trade than Ds (though it's not by any means a clear delineation). What matters to me is the rhetoric that implies a zero sum game in international trade, and both R and D leaders are guilty of that. There isn't a race to 'win' here, there's only lives to better and economies to grow. We are not in competition with other countries, but neither R nor D are willing to acknowledge this.
The party lines are a lot more blurred on this than many other issues, but on average I don't disagree. It's not a defining party issue, though, which is a shame. If issues like this were what divided the parties rather than stupid shit, I'd probably actually have some loyalty to an actual party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Er... subtracting the populists doesn't leave much left over, Loki. Especially in the House. There are plenty of Democrats who voted in favor of the last 3 free trade pacts this past year - I believe 80-odd senators voted in favor for the SK deal. But populist rhetoric is pretty universal.Quote:
I think the difference is that if you subtract the populists on both sides, Republicans might be convinced into supporting isolated anti-free trade measures (e.g. steel tariff, ethanol subsidies), while most Democrats can be easily convinced that all trade is bad, particularly with developing countries. I'm referring to the politicians and political establishment by the way; most members of the public aren't fans of free trade. Just saw a poll from 2010 that showed that only a quarter of Americans believed that globalization was beneficial for the US.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...2/senate/1/161
14 out of the 15 no votes were by Democrats, and this is after the trade agreement was renegotiated by Obama to include various "protections" that unions and environmentalists support.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...12/house/1/783
In the House, 2/3 of all Democrats voted against the bill, compared to less than 10% of Republicans.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...2/senate/1/163
Out of the 33 no votes against the Colombia free trade agreement, 2 were by Republicans.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...2/senate/1/162
Out of the 22 no votes against the Panama free trade agreement, 0 are by Republicans.
I really don't see how you can say the parties are even remotely similar on free trade issues. Only Democrats are voting against these agreements, and that's despite Obama renegotiating most of them.
In sum, between 1/2 and 2/3 of House Democrats are against free trade, compared to 5-10% of Republicans. In the Senate, nearly all Republicans support free trade, while about a third of Democrats do not.
Voting in favor of FTAs is not the only metric, Loki, and you know it. Rs support protectionist measures when it helps their constituencies, which essentially means they support FTAs in theory by want exceptions carved out for their own pet projects.
I still fail to see your point. Yes, both parties like pork, even if it entails some protectionist measures. Only Democrats are opposed to free trade agreements even with that pork. The numbers are just so clear that I really don't see how you can deny this. To put it another way, all Congressmen are pragmatic, abandoning their principles if key constituent interests are at stake. Only Democrats are ideologically opposed to trade.
Correction: some Democrats are ideologically opposed to free trade (a minority in the Senate). Both Ds and Rs resort to populist language when talking about trade issues, which is what I've been talking about. I've never denied that more Ds are opposed to FTAs than Rs, though it in theory has pretty widespread support across the US political spectrum (the US has been far more pro-free trade than most of the world; hence forming the GATT and WTO).
A majority of House Democrats are consistently against free trade. Nearly every FTA passes through the House thanks to Republicans. It's not a coincidence that the largest source of campaign funds for a majority of House Democrats is unions. Even if Democratic Senators generally support free trade, it's a moot point because both houses must ratify any agreement. So once again, the main reason for the delay of the most recent FTAs and the main reason we don't have more FTAs in general is the Democratic Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Just had a look at the NAFTA vote in the House. Republicans: 132 for, 43 against. Democrats: 102 for, 156 against. The bill received 16 votes more than necessary to pass.
...so? Your NAFTA numbers just make my point. A quarter of Rs opposed it and 40% of Ds supported it. D support was necessary for it to pass, but nowhere near as much support as would have been needed if Rs had voted universally for it. It's not a party line issue, though there is a slant.
Anyways, I'm completely uninterested in continuing this debate. Feel free to post a response, but I'm probably going to leave it at this. I made my point about rhetoric and that's all I wanted to say.
Looking from outside ALL American politicians have very strong protectionist reflexes whenever they are talking in front of voters. And then a lot still have them when they vote on free trade themselves.
Racism is basically the go-to example wrt invidious discrimination. At least in those countries with a Common Law heritage, which is where you find that phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Probably because popular support for free trade ranges between a third and a half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Not for the parties directly but it is one of a number of defining issues for the parties' respective Congressional Caucuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
And yet... the congressional steel caucus has plenty of R members (14/30 IIRC in the Senate). There's plenty of Republicans who caucus with groups calling for protectionist measures, whatever may be the official line by the RNC... and even the RNC's party line gets a bit confused when you actually listen to their rhetoric
And there are plenty of unions that support the Republican Party. And there are plenty of women who are taller than men. I don't see your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Well but all countries I know do that. For examples Visas are required to visit country X depending on the fact if I am citizen of country Y or country Z. And this is just one example.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And a few years ago in the US blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, SA had apartheid and Aus had the White Australia Policy for immigration. Just because something happens doesn't make it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Do you honestly think, that we (humanity) would ever reach a stage where your nationality won't matter? I mean in our lifetime not in utopia. This would than include free person movement worldwide.
I doubt that is really what it wants because deep down inside he believes in national governments.
Anyway, the whole rant against buying local is a bit ridiculous, there is no reason to stamp anybody as racist because they care more about the closer community they are part of themselves. In the end caring about who you live with is simple self-interest; the further away people are from you, the fewer things tie them with you, the less interest they have in your personal well-being. Putting your personal well-being first is not racist, xenophobic or whatever label free-trade fundamentalists try to stick on it. It is common sense.
And in the bigger picture; are your underpants really cheaper cut and stitched by chinese semi-slaves than by the when they were made by the people who now have becoming an underclass with no hope for a job living in your own country? And no, that is not an ethical question, but a macro-economical one.
National government can only work if you discriminate nationalities. I wonder how Rand want to solve that paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Er... that's completely untrue. Are municipal governments discriminating against other cities? No, you just need various levels of governance, and national government is one reasonable level. Obviously the particular jurisdiction of a national government will be rooted in history of a geographical and cultural nature, but the basic idea of a national government is no more particularist than any other local government.