Repeatedly I find that every argument against free trade is ultimately collectivist or utopian at its core. It’s the flip side of the same coin that gives us arguments for universal health care: emotional anecdotes, pipe dreams, and a terrible war against real-world consequences are all part of opposition to trade (the Buchanan wing of the protectionist sentiment also tends to add a dash of nativism and distrust of foreigners’ motives). And here again, I find Matthew’s light defense of Mr. Larison’s argument to suffer from the same sort of shortcoming.
Quite frankly, I’m really not prepared to put the entire economy on hold because a few senior citizens are upset that they can no longer work at the factory in their twilight years. Where do such anecdotal arguments end? Welcome to the real world, everyone: unfortunately, progress often involves a few people taking a couple of short-term hits. Just as e-mail is making the postal service and greeting cards less relevant to our daily lives, things are going to change elsewhere as technology progresses and certain sectors (i.e.; manufacturing) become less relevant. The Buchananite wing of the party is surely crestfallen that the world that they grew up in is changing, but worldwide economic growth and the individual’s right to private property really can’t be impeded for some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
The world simply does not revolve around a few individuals, and advocates of protectionism need to recognize that — at least if they want America to prosper and compete in the new, globalized world. Jump on the train, guys, because it’s leaving the station.
EDIT: Larison continues in the comment section of his blog:
First, we get this:
However, I also tend not to find the free trader appeal to helping developing countries very persuasive, since one of the promises of NAFTA supporters was that Mexico would provide employment for its own people at relatively decent wages and thus eliminate one of the reasons for mass immigration from the south. It turns out that this was a lot of nonsense: in the wake of NAFTA and the peso crisis, Mexican wages stagnated and mass immigration offered a way out for a lot of laborers. Again, there are people who benefit from NAFTA in Mexico, just as European liberals benefited from their economic model, but this does not account for the interests of large numbers of people in the country, and in turn the neglect of their interests becomes our immigration problem.
Well, yes. NAFTA has helped Mexico, but that doesn’t mean it’s still not better here or more desirable to work or live here. Hence, Mexicans would rather be here.
This seems not so much an argument against free trade as much as it is an argument for tighter immigration controls. Next.
There are also different kinds of inequitable distributions of wealth, and at some point this inequality becomes unhealthy and produces political upheaval. This is basic Aristotle. Globalization has meant that already stratified societies are becoming more so, and it has also meant that ours is becoming more stratified by disparity of income and education (exacerbated by mass immigration of unskilled workers). There are political and social considerations to be weighed here regarding our obligations to fellow citizens, and the viability of a democratic republican system, however flawed, in a society that is becoming more two-tiered. What we have got to do is get out of the homo oeconomicus approach to economic and trade policies, when economic and trade policies affect the structure of our polity and the quality of our culture and have to be judged on their effects in these spheres as well.
Well, he’s certainly right that I don’t care one whit about “income inequality,” and I certainly don’t think that it’s the government’s job to promote any specific “quality of culture.” This is a double-whammy for the promotion of government economic and social engineering. If that’s not a liberal notion, then I’m not sure what is.
The full globalist argument is that we have to accept the gutting of domestic industry for the sake of “growth,” while also importing cheap labor from the same countries with which we have these trade agreements that have undermined our industry. American laborers get hit coming and going. As a matter of our national trade policy, why shouldn’t their interests take priority or at least be weighed far more seriously than they are now?
He’s right, of course: one of the points of free trade is to “gut” the manufacturing industry, mostly because it’s obsolete. Protectionism is the equivalent of a bailout, quite frankly. As I stated above: I’m really not prepared to put the entire world economy on hold so that a bunch of greedy geezers can keep their jobs at the factory for old time’s sake.
And yes, I absolutely concede that free trade policies have “undermined our industry” in one sector — manufacturing — in the sense that manufacturing jobs are being phased out: again, that’s the point. We’re trying to move past manufacturing. It’s a relic of the past. And believe me, protectionists, we’re going to drag you out of it, even if you’re kicking and screaming the whole way.
Regardless, job loss is far easier to measure than the jobs that are replacing or will replace manufacturing jobs, which are far more diverse and dispersed. In reality, jobs aren’t being “lost”; merely replaced. Let’s turn this question on its head: why shouldn’t the interests of the entire rest of the country and the entire developing world take place over the irritated employees an obsolete, dying industry?
UPDATE #2: Larison also asserts that I have an
…indifference to real economic and human costs that I would expect from this sort.
Speaking of an indifference to human and economic costs, what are the costs to those not in the manufacturing sector in America over both the short and long terms — to say nothing of those not in America who could be lifted out of poverty if we merely let economic freedom and individual liberty do their work — if we adapt protectionist measures? This assault on capitalism flunks Henry Hazlitt’s basic lesson of economics: to look not just at how economic policies affect one group, but all groups. Economic policy toward a group does not exist in a vacuum, which is the fundamental fallacious assumption of the protectionists.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Why did this require another post? We already had two to work with.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I debated whether to put it on the front page, but ultimately decided that:
(1) I felt like it,
(2) It would look cool to have “No, Definitely Frivolous,” “Not So Frivolous,” and “Speaking of Frivolous Arguments” one after the other on the right-hand side, and
(3) I wanted this argument to be seen by lots of people
March 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
The train left years ago…some just pretend to wait in the station, but in reality, the are ‘off-track’.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Agreed Alex, and in fact, there are good arguments for maintaining free access to our markets for imports even if other nations close theirs.
I would make an exception to this argument for developing nations that need to build an industrial base.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
#2 I appreciate a man into self promotion. Who else will!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Alex,
I’m going to ignore the collectivist insinuation, and focus on the idea that my defense somehow stems from utopian impulses. Utopian is exactly what it isn’t. The point of conservatism, I should have thought, is that whenever government finishes its work, it ought to leave us more or less how it found us. Utopianism strives to use government to make man more than he is. And there’s certainly something to the argument that a policy which breezily says “oh boy, manufacturing doesn’t matter as long as we’re collectively moving to greater heights”, doesn’t, in fact, leave us how it found us. What happens if the new economy, promoted by unrestricted free trade, scotches the manufacturing, and leaves us with a whole bundle of highly-skilled professions, but no meaningfully unskilled professions? Unless individual human capability is limitless- a very utopian idea, I should think- we make a mistake in assuming that whatever replaces manufacturing, will fit neatly into the capabilities of those now working in manufacturing jobs. There’s also a good deal of instability created by dramatic economic changes, and any good conservative abhors instability. I don’t reject free trade, as a basic principle, on these grounds, but I think its potential for negative effects is more significant than you suppose.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
It’s utopian in the sense that it asserts that government can just step in and save something from itself. It assumes that (1) The manufacturing sector in the United States is vital, (2) The manufacturing sector in the United States should and can live indefinitely, and (3) Capitalism is fundamentally bad at its core because a few greedy geezers can’t bear the thought of having to get another job.
Free trade is not government stepping in. It’s government getting out of the way. Leaving us where we were found is not the goal of that: you’re damn right about that. It’s government getting its big foot out of our way so that capitalism can work its magic.
The new globalized world and technology fill in the unskilled jobs, while America enters a golden age of prosperity. At the same time, the developing world is lifted up from where it was. Free trade — capitalism — helps everyone in that way.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
One of the most unknown facts about US manufacturing is that output is still great. Its just done with less humans. Technology has eliminated many more mfg jobs than trade.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Excellent point, Gamecock.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“There’s also a good deal of instability created by dramatic economic changes, and any good conservative abhors instability.”
That’s an excellent word of caution. Because the flat world finds and rewards talent, our current educational landscape is a bit of a powder keg. With girls now outpacing boys academically and large portions of certain burgeoning ethnic groups also lagging, I’d say the danger of major social unrest is a real danger.
I think it’s become very important to make sure we find the academically talented/high IQ individuals in all walks of life and make sure we develop them to their potential. When we can point to the poor kid from the barrio who is now headed off to medical school, explain to the general public that he’s succeeding because he had the raw talent, then worked to develop it, we can defuse a lot of the race/class/gender warfare that we’re careening toward.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
And for those of us who are not academically talented, I think it’s important that our schools more effectively match people with their interests/abilities so that more of us, at least, have the intrisic reward of doing something we enjoy.
The goal being social stability walking in step with globalization.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
This all reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s first novel, Player Piano. The world is gloriously mechanized, and the intelligentsia and manager class get on just splendidly, but the lower classes find there’s no work to suit their talents. So. They. Do. Nothing. They’re rather unhappy about this, and with the help of some friendly intellectuals, a sort of revolution is ignited. It’s not a great book, and goodness knows I wouldn’t suggest conservatives get political lessons from Vonnegut (generally), but I always thought it had a decent bead on the law of unintended consequences. You should care, to some degree, about income inequality and “quality of culture”, if only for practical reasons; because they’re a part of determining what our society will look like and whether it can cohere.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:06 am
We could get along with restricted trade to preserve lower-skill jobs that are dying here, but it’s a self-defeating and ultimately cowardly solution. It’s not the way to remain on top in the world, it’s not the way to national strength, and its not the way to maintaining the great prosperity our prominence in the world has granted the nation and its people. We aren’t who we are because we insulate ourselves from change as if afraid, be it economically, politically, culturally, or otherwise. The protectionist road is sustainable and sane, maintaining domestic industry and the lifestyles of a past era, and we’d stay together as a nation and not do so bad, but it’s to sell ourselves short of what we really deserve out of fear that perhaps we might, in the end, fail. It’s a philosophy born of fear.
It’s a hard choice to make, because as conservatives we have a tendency to protect that which is valuable, and free trade threatens some really great things we have here in America – our manufacturing base isn’t just an economic giant, its a source of national and personal pride for many. But I’d hope those same will accept the truth that that base is no more – times are changing, and we’ve got to move ahead. Not with free trade, oblivious to its consequences, but rather developing our own advantages in a system (free trade) that gives the spoils to he that is best. Developing a more business-friendly environment and tax policy and promoting nascent industries that in the future we will be leaders in with a little boost.
Free trade isn’t the solution, but the acceptance of free trade generally is the only way we can attain the real solution, which is to stay at the forefront of the world by crafting smart policy. That’s what we’re all about. Protectionism is appealing because it lessens the chance of upheaval, but it’s gains are far, far less. With our economic edge would go the rest of our national edge. We’d be selling America short. We can also craft smart policy for a free trade world that simultaneously tackles the challenges of moving ahead – invest more in education for the poor, retraining for workers, etc. that rather than detains us, helps us move towards our goal and maintains the economic independence of the people.
Just because we live and interact in public doesn’t mean we should touch doorhandles, phones, chairs, etc and not wash our hands. You’d probably get at least a mean cold. But the answer to a bout of the cold isn’t to throw all that away and live as a hermit.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I don’t think Matthew or I are suggesting that we live in fear or bury our heads in the sand. I’m suggesting that we find something meaningful for 80+% of population to do in this brave new world.
To thrive in the new economy, you’ll need to be really smart and really talented. When we calculate the % of academically talented people, approximately 10% of the distribution, we find, for example, China, with a population of 1.3 billion people having, at minimum, 130 million people with an elite IQ of 120 or greater, while India, with a population estimated at more than 1.1 billion, with a nearly as impressive number of academically gifted people. In other words, China and India alone have more exceptionally talented people than the entire American workforce and dwarf, by a ratio of 25 to 1, the number of academically talented Americans.
When the groups who are succeeding are overwhelmingly of a certain race, ethnic group, class and gender, when there are large numbers of ‘have-nots’ and ‘never going to be’ you have an Rx for major trouble.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:43 am
#14 mac, I think you miss a very important fact in your analysis: The smarter, more talented individuals emigrate from their home countries to the US, since their talents and skills allow them to make more of themselves than their home countries.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Richard, its pretty hard to absorb a very high percentage of those kinds of numbers.
We continue to bury our heads in the sand and either not understand or not address the national security impact of a low manufacturing base. We absolutely have to make sure we are not giving up manufacturing that relates to our national security….oh, wait, we already have….and will be exploited for it I fear.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Free trade is the problem if you believe the American people cannot compete. And all complaints about our competitors enjoying unfair trade advantages are, in my view, rather pathetic excuses.
Before we start down the protectionist track, we should seriously review all of the strangulatory regulations with which we impede industry, ingenuity, and initiative in this very country. We’re approaching European levels of self-defeating red tape.
In this morning’s local paper, for instance, was a public notice that only licensed plumbers could work legally now in WV. You’ll find more people brainwashed by the anti-freedom agenda of special interest lobbies who find such laws to be great.
But requiring individuals to obtain state-sanctioned certification is the least creative, most soul-crushing means to the end of helping consumers find quality service workers. In fact, such regulations serve primarily to protect incumbent firms from competition, who have to clear a higher bar to enter the market — in this case, years of verifiable service as a journeyman.
What the heck is wrong with our country that we fall for such narrow-minded, anti-competitive, and anti-creative thinking? Why can’t our governing elites at the federal and state levels simply relinquish decision-making to the general public? Limitless hunger for power, that’s why.
It would fully suffice to do away with government-monopolized certification procedures in favor of certification by self-selected industry representative groups. People should still be free to choose contractors according to their own needs and preferences. A non-compulsory industry certification board would suffice to ensure quality, and should provide better services to its own members by policing the membership.
But no, as with EPA regulations mandating “environmental impact studies,” OSHA certification, local zoning regulators, and on and on, we’re increasingly choosing industrial economic suicide. And because all these special interest groups don’t have any explanation as to why their costs go up and quality falls (lack of competition), they have to scapegoat those “infernal foreigners” abroad who supposedly are trying to ruin America.
The infernal foreigners likely don’t have our best interests at heart, but our own governing overlords consistently do everything in their powers to grind the American spirit into the dirt.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Richard,
I’m all for the ‘right’ immigration. While we’re still a country that has a high standard of living, I think we should ‘skim the cream’ of as many countries as possible, get as many smart people as possible, to come to our country.
However, the point is, due to technology, they don’t need to emigrate. In many cases, they don’t want to because it’s hard to go from the culture of Bangalore or Shanghai to New York or Austin. They can stay home where they’re comfortable, eat their own food, speak their own language and live a much better life.
Read The Bell Curve by Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray. Murray is a Libertarian. Real Education from Charles Murray is also an important read in order to understand where I’m coming from. I’d also suggest The World is Flat by Tom Friedman.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I’m not so sure what you mean about ‘live a much better life’ mac. To my knowledged life in those countries are nothing compared to living here.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
All arguments against free trade are arguments against capitalism, individual rights, and private property. Period.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
That is basically correct Alex. We need to be careful not to hinder trade if we want capitalism and prosperity.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Illinois guy,
The first time I returned to the US from visiting other countries, I literally knelt down and kissed the ground after getting off the plain, and I still have the same feeling. The US is my home and it’s the greatest place on Earth, period.
However, many other people feel the same about their own countries. When you speak Mandarin emigrating here is tough. If you can stay home and have a higher standard of living due to technology, we’re finding that many do exactly that.
I’m not arguing against free trade, I’m saying we should mine and develop our own talent, wherever it may be. We should also skim the talent from other countries whenever possible. For those of us who are not talented, we need to find a way of plugging people into new economy jobs that they love, because many will, quite likely, have a lower standard of living.
BTW, I think the Fair Tax might be a great new economy system of taxation; it would help maintain our competitiveness and increase our efficiency.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
the *plane*
March 15th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
A lot of folks see the US losing the international economic competition that occurs under free trade. And to be clear we are falling behind.
These protectionists seem to think that we’d be better off pulling out of the competition than losing to other nations. This isn’t the case.
While we are becoming weaker and poorer (except for a very small percentage of Americans) we would be much worse off under restricted trade.
Just because free trade is failing doesn’t mean protectionism would be better.
The answer is fairly obvious.
We need to reform our regulations, taxes and institutions to empower Americans to compete more strongly against other nations. The answer to globalization isn’t to pull away from competition but to have economic victory over our foreign competitors.
Right now we’re being soundly defeated on the economic battlefield. Instead of surrender I believe we need to consider why our economic army (businesses) are performing so pitifully.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Even if the US would lose under the competition created by free trade — which I don’t think we will — then so what? Who says our country’s businesses are entitled to win? If other nations’ businesses outdo us, what’s wrong with that?
March 15th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
24
Thanks Doug. You did a better job of communicating what I was trying to say. We need to raise our game, big time. For those who are interested Richard Murray in ‘Real Education’ and Friedman in ‘The World is Flat’ are saying the same thing.
Not only do they have us greatly outnumbered, they are HUNGRY for success. We’re fat and happy and don’t even see the train coming at us.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
#25, We have a large measure of free trade and we have been losing.
While we’re not entitled to win, it should be the goal of any patriotic American to work towards our remaining strong and prosperous. Losing the economic competition (in the long-run) leads to weakness, poverty and a loss of political independence.
Our government should be prepared to alter its regulations, tax structure and institutions to empower American businesses to compete. To do otherwise is to sabotage our own economy and our own citizens’ prospects.
Expecting us to retain our living standards while the rest of the world moves past us… that has a tone of ignorance and arrogance.
If our businesses and institutions are competing strongly and sometimes losing that’s not a problem. We strengthen our competitors and ourselves in a battle where either side can taste victory or setbacks.
The problem is when the government is holding back businesses so they are unable to compete with foreign competitors. There’s also a problem when government has institutions that are inferior to those in other nations.
Then we lose not because other nations have specific strengths (or effort) but because our government through poor planning and regulation is holding our businesses back.
If free trade is going to work for average Americans then businesses, entrepreneurs and citizens must be unshackled and empowered to compete.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
If you really want to be irritated and at the same time inspired/motivated, read ‘The Post American World’ by Fareed Zakaria. I guarantee, you’ll make sure your kids are doing their math homework (and you might demand the school assign more)!
March 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
#16 ILGuy, I get your argument, and it’s a valid one. For national security reasons, there are certain things that should be done in the US (I do NOT include auto manufacturers, but I DO include certain technology companies). For those things, the proper thing for the US Gov’t to do is to restructure taxes and regulations in such a way as to allow for our companies to be competitive with foreign companies, NOT restrict foreign companies. Yes, for those industries, I’m willing to sacrifice the efficiencies of a fully free market for the sake of national security.
#24 Right on! In general, our form of gov’t is so much more friendly to people that they come here in such great numbers that the waiting list is tremendous. In general, our gov’t has become so negative for business that they flee to other countries and keep money overseas to avoid the taxation and regulation. Correct the latter, and we’ll have everything we need to compete, without a doubt.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Free trade may be our last modern hope for reshaping the economy in a more capitalistic manner, come to think of it. There’s a consensus around free trade, and to keep America competitive, we need to unchain our businesses and entrepreneurs.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I agree with much of what is being said. I feel one of the problems is that some of you are acting as if some of us are advocating protectionism. I don’t think any of us are. However, I want to make two points:
1) A level playing field for Americans is not counter to ‘free trade’. Governmental supports by other countries, unbalanced tariffs, and flimsy quality/safety are part of why jobs rush overseas. There is NOTHING wrong with modifying some of those things where inequity exists. That’s not protectionist policy, its called fair, and is still very much free trade.
2) Our national security can be at risk by many, many, many different types of manufacturing when it is farmed out overseas. I don’t know how to explain it as well as some of you probably could, but you can suddenly start manufacturing something once you’ve lost given it up. It takes many months, and in some cases years to bring something back once its lost, and even then, you find that component parts are being manufactured elsewhere also, so even attempting to pull it back is a lost cause. What I’m trying to get across gentlemen (and ladies) is that we have to keep this in mind at all times because there are many people out there who do not like us very well. And some of them that we may not think of as enemies right now could easily become so if they see they could bring us to our knees, and they can now, and its only getting worse. We need to wake up.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
29
Richard,
Actually, some of the people we want to come here, the grad students, etc., are starting to go elsewhere (Europe) or they’re staying home because our immigration policies, etc. are a hassle, or the jobs they want can now be found at home.
As Illinois guy said, it’s wake up time, we can’t just stand (or sit)around yelling USA, USA.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
IL Guy, in my view “fair trade” arguments suffer from three endemic problems.
1. The slippery slope. If a particular industry, often dominated by oligopoly, begins to find favor with government, it will invest more in lobbying government whenever it finds itself confronted with tough competition from abroad. This leads to innovative complacency and inertia when it comes to producing goods and servicing customers, because the industry foresees greater, easier returns on lobbying investment. This type of corporatist political power will eventually extend to protections against even domestic newcomers entering the market.
2. Arbitrary definitions of “fairness.” Competition is fundamentally a contest between companies and individuals that are not equal and hence unfair. Attempts to declare certain inherent advantages and disadvantages to be unfair will become the political focus, which is an actual distraction from trying to compete by attracting and retaining customers.
3. Wealth transfer. Countries that subsidize their own industries or allow especially lax regulations to promote the exports of targeted industries actually transfer wealth from the taxpayers and/or property owners in those countries to the benefit of consumers in our country. Such a mercantile program cannot survive indefinitely because of its inherent wastefulness.
I do agree that cutting-edge technology related to defense should be fostered in a targeted fashion out of concern for national security. But budgets for such projects should be kept in check. Government is notoriously bad at “picking winners” when it comes to industrial policy. There’s no reason to believe government will have greater success in defense-related industries.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
33 – your #1: I’m not talking about companies finding favor; talking about correcting current inequalities. When Mitt Romney was talking to the Michigan folks, he specifically mentioned that we needed people in Government who are responsible for coming up with these agreements to come from a business background so that they understand the intracacies of what is fair and unfair to the American worker.
#2 – This doesn’t hold water. You are just as guilty of arbitrarily assuming that today’s situation is fair.
#3 – WHo said anything about the government subsidizing anyone? A lot could be done before we would even be at a place to review whether or not any of that would be appropriate.
On your last paragraph – Do you think today that all of the components necessary to make our jet airplanes, our submarines, our tanks, or even our computers are made here? No way! Like I said, we are already in jeopardy.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
In addition to the concerns Illinois guy expressed in 34, there are also social/cultural concerns to globalism, here’s a nice quote form The World in Flat,
from Harvard’s noted political theorist Michael J. Sandel,
“What you are arguing is that developments in information technology are enabling companies to squeeze out all the inefficiencies and friction from their markets and business operations. That is what your notion of ‘flattening’ really means. But a flat, frictionless world is a mixed blessing. It may, as you suggest, be good for global business. Or it may, as Marx believed, auger well for a proletarian revolution. But it may also pose a threat to the distinctive places and communities that give us our bearings that locate us in the world. From the first stirrings of capitalism, people have imagined the possibility of the world as a perfect market-unimpeded by protectionist pressures, disparate legal systems, cultural and linguistic differences, or ideological disagreement. But this vision has always bumped up against the world as it really is-full of sources of friction and inefficiency. Some obstacles to a frictionless global market are truly sources of waste and lost opportunities. But some of these inefficiencies are institutions, habits, cultures, and traditions that people cherish percisely because they reflect nonmarket values like social cohesion, religious faith, and national pride. If global markets and new communications technologies flatten those differences, we may lose something important. That is why the debate about capitalism has been, from the very beginning, about which frictions, barriers, and boundaries are mere sources of waste and inefficiency, and which are sources of identity and belonging that we should try to protect.”
March 15th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
If we’re willing to accept that America may not continue to win the game of global economics, as Alex has in 25 and Doug has confirmed in 27, are we willing to sacrifice our cultural ‘frictions,’
our “nonmarket values like social cohesion, religious faith, and national pride” on the alter of global capitalism?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I’m don’t think Doug was affirming that, was he? Unless I’m missing something, these paragraphs of his does not appear to be saying that:
While we’re not entitled to win, it should be the goal of any patriotic American to work towards our remaining strong and prosperous. Losing the economic competition (in the long-run) leads to weakness, poverty and a loss of political independence.
Our government should be prepared to alter its regulations, tax structure and institutions to empower American businesses to compete. To do otherwise is to sabotage our own economy and our own citizens’ prospects.
Expecting us to retain our living standards while the rest of the world moves past us… that has a tone of ignorance and arrogance.
The problem is when the government is holding back businesses so they are unable to compete with foreign competitors. There’s also a problem when government has institutions that are inferior to those in other nations.
Then we lose not because other nations have specific strengths (or effort) but because our government through poor planning and regulation is holding our businesses back.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
FACT: Free Trade leads to prosperity, peace, and international cooperation and understanding. All arguments against it are fundamentally arguments against individual liberty. There is simply no way to have a free economy in one country without it spilling over into others. Hong Kong eventually wagged the Chinese dog, and the reason was that the contrast was so blatant. In Berlin, the West part of the city was free and prosperous and the East was quite literally a demilitarized zone. So East Germany eventually became a part of West Germany. So many countries have converted to Capitalism in the last 20 years that our turning our collective back on free trade right now would deny us most of the available benefits of having won the Cold War. Comparative advantage, anyone?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Dave, Is anyone arguing against free trade, except for national security purposes? As far as I can tell, no one is. Some of us, however, do not assume that every facet of every trade agreement is fair and equitable at this point in time? Can we agree to not call each other protectionist just because some of us think we have some work to do to make things more equitable for the American worker, and thus for America? Romney certainly thought there was needed repair of some of our agreements, and I certainly agree.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
As Friedman writes, the Industrial Age and the Information Age are giving way to the Talent Age. Intellectual ability is now a commodity.
High IQ (talent) is a gift, hard work can make up for a lot, but the Chinese and Indians ARE working very hard and they have between them at least 250 million VERY talented ‘commodities’ to our 25 million. And they’re playing ‘extreme’ capitalism, the Chinese bulldoze entire communities and within a few months have a shiny new office park for their client.
Again, I’m proposing we proceed with eyes wide-open to the challenge, build on our strengths and, as Doug says, reform our institutions/tax code to conform to our new reality.
America and American ideas are superior, but I’d propose that we need to recapture the Puritan ethic of delayed gratification, the unglamorous societal traits that helped bring about our prosperity, such as industry, thrift, discipline and academic rigor.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
If the Chinese and Indians work harder than us, then they deserve to beat us. Period. Americans aren’t entitled to anything. We got where we are today through hard work, and to keep what we have, we’ll need to continue to work hard.
It’s really the paradox of prosperity, no? Once we become prosperous, we tend to forget why we got that way in the first place. As if we became prosperous for no reason or something. Pah!
March 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
we have some work to do to make things more equitable for the American worker
You are then arguing against free trade.
Free traders don’t believe that American workers are entitled to be equal to foreigners.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
You’re either not understanding what I’m saying, or you’re not as smart as I thought you were Alex. We do the ‘free trade’ thing under trade agreements, right? Somebody negotiated on our behalf to come to those agreements, right? Someone did for the other countries as well. I’m sayng taht whomever did so didn’t get it right for the American worker, or for America. You can act as iff what we have now is perfect from now until the cows come home, but it won’t make it so.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Alex,
I would be surprised if 1 in 20 free traders took your position; that free trade is justifiable, even if it ultimately hurts American workers, because free trade is somehow “morally right”. Call me a nativist if you like, but I think there are ways to balance freedom, capitalism and the like, with the interests of Americans; I still believe that democracy (and, frankly, conservatism) means that The Leader shouldn’t worsen the people, for reasons of his own.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Amen Matthew! How did you ever get so smart?
March 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Free trade is the best option if it is available.
However sometimes no trade agreement is better than a bad trade agreement.
Paradoxically not all moves towards free trade are good. You really need a team of trade economists to sift over a trade agreement and determine if it is an improvement. Often politics is ensconced in trade agreements actually giving domestic industries protections they didn’t already have.
The CAFTA is a good example of a trade agreement with too many gimmicks and set asides for industry.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Doug, you’re pretty darned smart too!! Lots of people on here are. That’s why I come here so much. I think we all learn from it. I know I do.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
47
agreed
March 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Ya, along the lines of what Matthew and Doug have said, free trade is a means, not an end. I’m really very loyal to capitalism because capitalism works and works incredibly well for us, not because it is morally right (as much as I tend to agree with the aims of philosophies like Objectivism). Protectionism, nativism, etc, to be sure, is a way to defeat, but free trade for its own sake isn’t our objective. Coupling free trade in a market economy with smart policy promoting our comparative advantages is – that’s how we ensure our enduring economic strength.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
41
“It’s really the paradox of prosperity, no? Once we become prosperous, we tend to forget why we got that way in the first place. As if we became prosperous for no reason or something.”
True and, paradoxically, it could be that the qualities that helped bring about our prosperity will be sacrificed in the name of prosperity because they’re viewed as inefficiencies.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:05 am
If capitalism — freedom, individual liberty, property rights — is no longer considered its own objective by most of the population, then we are doomed as a civilization.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:08 am
So Matthew: you’re saying that Americans are entitled to out-compete the Indians, even if Indians are better at what the job is?
Spoken like a true anti-capitalist!
March 16th, 2009 at 7:11 am
#51, What a fundamentalist point of view.
If Americans don’t hold to some absolutist creed then civilization is at an end?
These concepts (freedom, individual liberty, property rights) have always been compromised at some points to allow society to function.
There are shades of totalitarianism in putting abstract ideals over the well being of actual human beings. Abstract ideals are means to a just and healthy society. They aren’t ends in themself.
Patriotism should imply some concern for the well-being of your fellow Americans. Otherwise you’re devoted to an idealized fantasy and not a real nation made up of people.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Alex,
I don’t think Americans are “entitled” to anything. Indians are certainly “entitled” to out-compete us; and I’m entitled- as an American- to hope that they fail. If being a capitalist means that I have to praise every development of capitalism, whether or no it happens to help society, then I suppose I am an anti-capitalist. But then, I don’t think that’s what capitalism means, and I don’t think that anyone, outside of those in a handful of libertarian enclaves, takes that position.
I do take your meaning that capitalism- because it is essentially a freedom philosophy- is an inherent good, irrespective of the results. But, it is not the only inherent good. Family, community, order, continuity- these too are important goods, and as a society we must figure out how to negotiate between them. Thankfully, I think they’re almost entirely compatible. But, I won’t worship them.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Amen Doug!
March 16th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I am a patriot, not a nationalist. I love America for her ideals, not because I think her people are entitled to beat some other land mass’ people.
It’s Orwellian to call me the one advocating a policy with shades of totalitarianism when your actual argument is that I’m being too freedom-loving and not nationalistic enough.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:04 am
If being a capitalist means that I have to praise every development of capitalism
I didn’t ask you to praise it (I wrote a post just the other day about children’s media where I took issue with a development of capitalism). I asked you to acknowledge that America has no right to keep the Indians from out-competing us on something, so long as it’s done fairly. I asked you to take the course of liberty, rather than social and economic engineering. If you like family and community, partake in it. But don’t enforce it at the point of a gun.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:29 am
“Patriotism should imply some concern for the well-being of your fellow Americans. Otherwise you’re devoted to an idealized fantasy and not a real nation made up of people.” Yes, that is true, but one of the greatest characteristics of our country is Capitalism itself.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:41 am
51. My concern is, if they don’t ‘do’ US style capitalism, (and they do not) what happens if they win the flat world? What will that do to our culture and our rights?
March 16th, 2009 at 8:46 am
What do you mean, mac? Why would our rights be threatened?
March 16th, 2009 at 9:51 am
My view is that the great disasters of the 20th Century came about because of ideologies: focusing on entirely on the ends while ignoring the means and their implicit human costs.
Once Nietzsche bumped off God philosophically (and perhaps sarcastically), the individual possessed of sufficient ambition was elevated to the place of the deposed Deity. This led to a lot of convenient justifications for mass murder as a means of establishing a Heaven on Earth: If you look at the objectives of the many unfettered ideologues, you’ll find these ends to be nearly indistinguishable from an earthly Paradise, albeit a man-made one.
Capitalism was demoted by the Marxists to the satanic role, with the working “proletarian” as the god of the communist paradise. In contrast, and as a counter-move, competing ideologues elevated the Capitalist to the place of the highest being. The Randites are thus creatures of Marx and (the caustic pessimist) Nietzsche, rather than of the Scottish enlightenment.
I’m an advocate for free markets and entrepreneurial attainment, but am indifferent to capitalism, which has been predominantly defined by the ideologues. Capitalism is not an end in itself, but rather the best, most natural, least wasteful means for human achievement and advancement. Capitalism nevertheless suffers from boom and bust excesses.
As an ideology, capitalism tends toward the concentration of power and control. It may very well succumb to the same totalitarian impulses as have all the other ideologies. Some anarcho-capitalist ideologues, in fact, find democracy incompatible with their paradisaical aims, and would prefer elections to be dispensed with.
***
The glib assertion that it doesn’t matter whether Indians or Americans succeed in international free-market competition would not appear to me to be a marketable argument at election time. And for good reason. If we’re running this centuries-long experiment in self-government, then it is based on the theory that our democracy is better suited to looking out for the success and well being of broad segments of the populace — for everyone’s well being if possible.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Capitalism is not an end in itself, but rather the best, most natural, least wasteful means for human achievement and advancement.
That’s just the natural order of things, yes.
But “capitalism” isn’t some random term. It actually comprises things. Capitalism means: individual liberty, private property, personal responsibility.
These are definitely ends in themselves.
The glib assertion that it doesn’t matter whether Indians or Americans succeed in international free-market competition would not appear to me to be a marketable argument at election time.
Never said it was. And you’re right: it’s not. But that’s not what we’re arguing, here.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
60 markG touched on it. Since China is practicing anarchocapitalism, if they ‘win’ my concerns go back to what Dr Sandel said in the quote above. How much leverage might they have over us, what if they decide that some of our rights/institutions are bad for business?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Anarcho-capitalism?
That’s an actual term, you know. It’s Murray Rothbard’s wacky economic philosophy.
Not quite what China’s doing.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Ok, they’re practicing a form of capitalism that is in many ways unlike our own, making up their own rules as they go along. The same concerns apply. We’ve used our economic power to try to promote democracy, what if they as MarkG wrote, “would prefer elections to be dispensed with.”
March 16th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Yikes, I finally got around to actually looking up anarcho-capitalism, talk about your boneheaded misuse of terms.
Anyway, it was an interesting discussion, although it seems to me that Matthew, Doug, MarkG and Illinois Guy seem to have more balanced view of the role of capitalism.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:26 am
PianoDraft…
Megacool Blog indeed!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Great website Enjoy!…
February 5th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
[...] and then complains that one of his colleagues gave this post any consideration at all. In the second response, he resorts to the globalist equivalent of “if you want to make an omelette, you have to [...]