"To argue for open-mindedness on protectionism when power lies in the hand of Donald Trump and his cronies is truly to take a historical gamble - a gamble at long odds - and with that comes also a measure of responsibility for what ensues."
But this misses critically the point MP tries to make, that businesses, workers, and middle class savers have increasingly ceased to see this as a gamble at all, because right now the economy for many is terrible. Despite the constant crowing by folks like Krugman that people just don't understand how good they have it rn, a metric shitton of people do not feel they have it good and they can directly trace this to policies which the Democrats cling to, like free trade and certain regulations that work out to NIMBYism. If you can't afford a house, you're real income is demonstrably worse than your parents, and the only jobs around you are service jobs demeaningly catering solely to the whims of a class of people living large, then yeah you don't see this as a risk because actually quite credibly the free trade argument is a bad one.
The Democrats in failing to even engage with trade discussion are just ceding the whole field to Trump, and this dismissiveness besides being another case of quite openly self-interest elitism in most cases is also missing the very real probably that protectionism could be steered in a beneficial direction. Beneficial not just in a narrowly nationalist sense even, but globally, because ultimately it is the race to the bottom that complete free trade enables and the removal of any teeth to labor or environmental standards that has prevented Western nations from progressing for the last several decades. So long as businesses in dictatorships are favored by our trade policy, we basically ensure that our own businesses either become like them or die off. If instead we held countries we trade freely with to the same standards, the people in those countries would benefit in the long run too.
Could you pursue the following issue: The United States shops primarily at national outlets: Amazon, Costco, Trader Joe's, Lowe's, etc. and these maintain the same or similar pricing throughout the country. On the other hand, average wealth varies so greatly from state to state (and county to county within states.) When pricing is the same it's cheap for us in the wealthy states and expensive for say Mississippi. On the other hand, where prices are adjusted, such as gasoline and some food stores, aren't the wealthy secretly subsidizing the poor? Two Americas, therefore a rotten political situation based on hatred.
Wow. Mind bending wishful thinking going on here. Historic gamble turns into historic economic disaster. Because this was an election won on the promise of nothing ventured nothing gained, i.e, more wishful thinking. Strap yourself in.
"To argue for open-mindedness on protectionism when power lies in the hand of Donald Trump and his cronies is truly to take a historical gamble - a gamble at long odds - and with that comes also a measure of responsibility for what ensues."
But this misses critically the point MP tries to make, that businesses, workers, and middle class savers have increasingly ceased to see this as a gamble at all, because right now the economy for many is terrible. Despite the constant crowing by folks like Krugman that people just don't understand how good they have it rn, a metric shitton of people do not feel they have it good and they can directly trace this to policies which the Democrats cling to, like free trade and certain regulations that work out to NIMBYism. If you can't afford a house, you're real income is demonstrably worse than your parents, and the only jobs around you are service jobs demeaningly catering solely to the whims of a class of people living large, then yeah you don't see this as a risk because actually quite credibly the free trade argument is a bad one.
The Democrats in failing to even engage with trade discussion are just ceding the whole field to Trump, and this dismissiveness besides being another case of quite openly self-interest elitism in most cases is also missing the very real probably that protectionism could be steered in a beneficial direction. Beneficial not just in a narrowly nationalist sense even, but globally, because ultimately it is the race to the bottom that complete free trade enables and the removal of any teeth to labor or environmental standards that has prevented Western nations from progressing for the last several decades. So long as businesses in dictatorships are favored by our trade policy, we basically ensure that our own businesses either become like them or die off. If instead we held countries we trade freely with to the same standards, the people in those countries would benefit in the long run too.
Could you pursue the following issue: The United States shops primarily at national outlets: Amazon, Costco, Trader Joe's, Lowe's, etc. and these maintain the same or similar pricing throughout the country. On the other hand, average wealth varies so greatly from state to state (and county to county within states.) When pricing is the same it's cheap for us in the wealthy states and expensive for say Mississippi. On the other hand, where prices are adjusted, such as gasoline and some food stores, aren't the wealthy secretly subsidizing the poor? Two Americas, therefore a rotten political situation based on hatred.
Wow. Mind bending wishful thinking going on here. Historic gamble turns into historic economic disaster. Because this was an election won on the promise of nothing ventured nothing gained, i.e, more wishful thinking. Strap yourself in.
"Assuming that Trump’s policy is not driven by impulse alone" appeared a few times in this piece. And it's exactly what scares me most.