Not voting in Australia is easy - you donkey vote. Actually I think we need to take that further and add an "abstain" box on the forms, but I see a world of difference between declaring you abstain from voting in an official way, and not voting because you just never went.
Not voting in Australia is easy - you donkey vote. Actually I think we need to take that further and add an "abstain" box on the forms, but I see a world of difference between declaring you abstain from voting in an official way, and not voting because you just never went.
Hasn't donkey voting basically caused a bunch of controversy, even after random ballots?
Not voting in Australia is easy - you donkey vote. Actually I think we need to take that further and add an "abstain" box on the forms, but I see a world of difference between declaring you abstain from voting in an official way, and not voting because you just never went.
Hasn't donkey voting basically caused a bunch of controversy, even after random ballots?
Mandatory voting is unconstitutional anyway, no use arguing it in the context of the U.S.
Which is pretty much a case-in-point reminder that the US constitution, while nice, isn't all that and a bag of chips. Good democracy requires obligatory participation by all capable, or as close to as you can get without screwing people over some other way.
Mandatory voting is unconstitutional anyway, no use arguing it in the context of the U.S.
Which is pretty much a case-in-point reminder that the US constitution, while nice, isn't all that and a bag of chips. Good democracy requires obligatory participation by all capable, or as close to as you can get without screwing people over some other way.
Mandatory voting is unconstitutional anyway, no use arguing it in the context of the U.S.
Which is pretty much a case-in-point reminder that the US constitution, while nice, isn't all that and a bag of chips. Good democracy requires obligatory participation by all capable, or as close to as you can get without screwing people over some other way.
Its a right to vote, not an obligation.
Do you not get that I think it should be an obligation?
Mandatory voting is unconstitutional anyway, no use arguing it in the context of the U.S.
Which is pretty much a case-in-point reminder that the US constitution, while nice, isn't all that and a bag of chips. Good democracy requires obligatory participation by all capable, or as close to as you can get without screwing people over some other way.
Its a right to vote, not an obligation.
Do you not get that I think it should be an obligation?
Why? Because it can be? Should it be mandatory for everyone to run for public office, because we can and it would make people more involved?
Mandatory voting is unconstitutional anyway, no use arguing it in the context of the U.S.
Which is pretty much a case-in-point reminder that the US constitution, while nice, isn't all that and a bag of chips. Good democracy requires obligatory participation by all capable, or as close to as you can get without screwing people over some other way.
Its a right to vote, not an obligation.
Do you not get that I think it should be an obligation?
Why? Because it can be? Should it be mandatory for everyone to run for public office, because we can and it would make people more involved?
Voting is pretty much the minimum level of participation in democracy that makes it differ - at all - from being a monarchy or a dictatorship state.
Mandatory voting is unconstitutional anyway, no use arguing it in the context of the U.S.
Which is pretty much a case-in-point reminder that the US constitution, while nice, isn't all that and a bag of chips. Good democracy requires obligatory participation by all capable, or as close to as you can get without screwing people over some other way.
Its a right to vote, not an obligation.
Do you not get that I think it should be an obligation?
Why? Because it can be? Should it be mandatory for everyone to run for public office, because we can and it would make people more involved?
Voting is pretty much the minimum level of participation in democracy that makes it differ - at all - from being a monarchy or a dictatorship state.
It really isn't; its simply a lack of information - information I'd argue is important. Parallel example: in the data entry system at work where our soil survey data is stored, one test is described in terms of the level of reaction you see upon adding KCl solution to soil. It runs from 1-4, with one being "a little fizzing" and 4 being "wheee, mini volcano ow ow its spitting burning stuff out of the test tube at me". However, there's no "0", for "test performed, no reaction at all". This is a problem, because you just have to take it on faith that the test was actually performed at all, and there's no way that any worker isn't going to slip up and forget to record the info once in a while. The lack of an "abstain" vote and the lack of attention paid to what a high proportion of abstains on an individual issue means is similar to me, and similarly problematic. 'Abstains' strike me as a far more effective measure of voter discontent with available options, and I'm willing to go so far as to say that if the number of "abstains" is high enough then the decision should be scrapped and the process begin anew.
I know that last part never happens anywhere, but in the parliament here and the Senate/House of Reps in your country, abstain votes are recorded and especially high or low numbers of abstains tend to be at least commented on. Citizen voting should be treated the same. If you're not allowing your elected officials to pike on voting, you shouldn't be letting citizens do it either.
How about organizing voting duty similar to jury duty. Every election only a randomly chosen subset of the population gets to vote. Since their votes are now very powerful, they might have a better incentive (or even be moved by their civic duty) to be informed on the issues.
If you think of a jury as a voting system, it works pretty well. Randomly select 12 people to "vote." They are now so powerful, that they feel compelled to at least think about their vote thoroughly.
in the parliament here and the Senate/House of Reps in your country, abstain votes are recorded and especially high or low numbers of abstains tend to be at least commented on. Citizen voting should be treated the same. If you're not allowing your elected officials to pike on voting, you shouldn't be letting citizens do it either.
I would love to have a "none of the above" box on the ballot.
It might go some way to move the criteria for winning an election away from "being better than the alternatives".
On that note, however, I am COMPLETELY opposed to these "Vote or Die"/"Get out the Vote" operations. There is something worse than not voting, and that is voting for the wrong reasons. There should be no external 'incentive' for voting, no days off, etc. Voting is intrinsically rewarding.
Whatever. Those campaigns are just one of the ways we socialize our youth with an ethic of voting.
Most people's first vote(s) aren't the most meticulously reasoned things, because it takes a while to get your feet politically.
Shinto on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
To be perfectly honest, I think that if the US wasn't as politically powerful as it is, the UN would be all over your electoral process. Unfortunately, they're only really capable of proper oversight in third-world holes that no-one cares about.
I agree with this. The mechanics of our election process are full of holes and conflicts of interest. Hell, one of the central election strategies is to run hard-negative ads in certain markets just to broadly depress voting turn-out.
To be perfectly honest, I think that if the US wasn't as politically powerful as it is, the UN would be all over your electoral process. Unfortunately, they're only really capable of proper oversight in third-world holes that no-one cares about.
I agree with this. The mechanics of our election process are full of holes and conflicts of interest. Hell, one of the central election strategies is to run hard-negative ads in certain markets just to broadly depress voting turn-out.
Ha ha, this reminds me of hearing on the radio that a group from some relatively together African country (Kenya? Ghana?) offered to supply election observers in 2004. We probably could have used their help...
To be perfectly honest, I think that if the US wasn't as politically powerful as it is, the UN would be all over your electoral process. Unfortunately, they're only really capable of proper oversight in third-world holes that no-one cares about.
I agree with this. The mechanics of our election process are full of holes and conflicts of interest. Hell, one of the central election strategies is to run hard-negative ads in certain markets just to broadly depress voting turn-out.
I don't know, it doesn't seem like negative campaigning is really on the list of things the U.N. intervenes on.
I notice the U.N. doesn't intervene in Italy. They have all manner of problems and are not a superpower.
The U.N. doesn't have any power to change our electoral policies. Mandatory voting is only done by a very small group of countries (who are mostly small in size). I don't really see it happening here, especially with punitive measures. It goes against a lot of values instilled in the Constitution, whether you like it or not.
To be perfectly honest, I think that if the US wasn't as politically powerful as it is, the UN would be all over your electoral process. Unfortunately, they're only really capable of proper oversight in third-world holes that no-one cares about.
I agree with this. The mechanics of our election process are full of holes and conflicts of interest. Hell, one of the central election strategies is to run hard-negative ads in certain markets just to broadly depress voting turn-out.
I don't know, it doesn't seem like negative campaigning is really on the list of things the U.N. intervenes on.
I notice the U.N. doesn't intervene in Italy. They have all manner of problems and are not a superpower.
I don't they think they had deliberate disenfranchisement of poor and ethnic minorities to the extent the US did. It also seems to be more egalitarian - each side claims that the other cheated.
Gorak on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
To be perfectly honest, I think that if the US wasn't as politically powerful as it is, the UN would be all over your electoral process. Unfortunately, they're only really capable of proper oversight in third-world holes that no-one cares about.
I agree with this. The mechanics of our election process are full of holes and conflicts of interest. Hell, one of the central election strategies is to run hard-negative ads in certain markets just to broadly depress voting turn-out.
I don't know, it doesn't seem like negative campaigning is really on the list of things the U.N. intervenes on.
I notice the U.N. doesn't intervene in Italy. They have all manner of problems and are not a superpower.
Well, the UN doesn't really intervene in Europe outside of the brand-new Republics and the occasional punitive action in pseudo-European Turkey. I didn't really mean that negative campaigning is an international incident; just that it shows that our central actors (and executives and enforcers) in our democratic system are often given to subverting the basic premise of participatory democracy.
And Mith, that Economist article proves that Caplan is as full of shit as we thought.
Can you be more specific? I happen to think that his observations are correct.
As it points out, Caplan states that there are four biases at work:
The first is that society is anti-market - that we don't comprehend that the market benefits us. What Caplan seems to not get is that many times, it doesn't. To take an example close to home, my home state deregulated electrical power generation about a decade ago. Supposedly, this would cause prices to drop. Instead, it's been a massive screwup, and nobody in their right mind without a vested interest still supports deregulation. The reality is that the populace is wary of the market - sure, it can be beneficial, but it can also be incredibly destructive.
Second, Caplan states that we are anti-foreigner. The examples that he gives, though, are bullshit. The line about jobs that Americans shun is a load of crap - Americans don't shun those jobs, we just refuse to do them at the wages that they think they can pay for them. As for outsourcing, the problem there is that it ultimately corrodes our internal capabilities - look at the number of native CS majors over the past decade for a great example. Opposition to foreign production stems from the fact that it is driving the race to the bottom.
The point about "make-work" is probably the worst, because it ignores so much about keeping a community healthy. Yes, one could hire a super efficient person to handle the workload, and only have to pay that person, but if he's the ONLY one working, you're going to see a sharp decline in the health of the community. It's actually better for the community if you employ a decent cross-section of it. There's also the ideological bias here as well - the idea of using work to employ a large section of the community is very much Keynesian, and the Cato boys never liked Keynes. So, to sum this point up, we place the strength of the community over pure productivity.
Finally, the pessimism issue. This is purely due to Caplan sitting in his ivory tower. Yes, it's easy to say "look at all the economic indicators, things are going swimmingly" from a macro standpoint. But when you're on the ground and all you see is solid jobs being replaced with crappy service McJobs, your earning power eroding, your job stability lost long ago - why WOULDN'T you see things in a pessimistic light. Caplan should get out of the ivory tower, and see how the other half lives, if he wants to comprehend why the common man has a pessimistic outlook.
And again, there's the issue of his biases - considering he's aligned with Cato, he's not just an economist, but instead is probably most in tune with the Chicago school. However, discussing the merits and flaws of that system is definately off topic here.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited August 2007
In short: maximized economic efficiency serves capital holders greatly and tends to benefit consumers. Workers, however, tend to get screwed when economic efficiency is maximized.
In short: maximized economic efficiency serves capital holders greatly and tends to benefit consumers. Workers, however, tend to get screwed when economic efficiency is maximized.
And the great majority of voters are workers.
Hence why there's been such a push to get us to self-identify as consumers. Makes the crap more palatable.
Angel, I will concede a few points about a few things. Deregulation (Jeez, what were we thinking? We just deregulated institutional monopolies. Which is insane.), for one. But for the most part, I think that you are being irrational (yeah, like one in the book).
I don't think you should criticize him for making impartial observations. I agree that his recommendations are slightly wonky, but his observations are made from some good, old rational Science, while yours are based on first-hand experiences at best (though they are infinitely more likely the empty rhetoric of some populist politician).
Angel, I will concede a few points about a few things. Deregulation (Jeez, what were we thinking? We just deregulated institutional monopolies. Which is insane.), for one. But for the most part, I think that you are being irrational (yeah, like one in the book).
I don't think you should criticize him for making impartial observations. I agree that his recommendations are slightly wonky, but his observations are made from some good, old rational Science, while yours are based on first-hand experiences at best (though they are infinitely more likely the empty rhetoric of some populist politician).
The fact that you call economics a rational science is enough to make me laugh. Honestly, if I could make a new thread, I'd have to make one on discussing the moral bankruptcy of Cato. Like I said, most of the bullshit that he states comes from the fact that he's in an ivory tower, looking at the macro, and betting it helps the micro. Problem is, that's not always the case.
Like I said, most of the bullshit that he states comes from the fact that he's in an ivory tower, looking at maximizing one or two variables in the macro, and not really caring but claiming that it helps the micro.
I do think that we have a significant difference of political opinion, but hopefully we can find some sort of common ground.
I do not think that Libertarian is a dirty word, for starters. That is how I define myself when asked; it is not perfect, but it makes more sense than saying "Liberal" or "Conservative". Whereas I believe that trade should be free and unfettered, I also believe in Universal health care and free education. Pure, unregulated capitalism probably would not be as beneficial as Milton Friedman would like. After all, there should be balance. I think we can both agree with that. Whereas you would believe that the Government should be more powerful in some areas, I think that I would disagree with you.
Anyways, I would just like to start off by saying that a lot of your observations, especially as your post progresses, seem to be quite weak.
You start off strong - you have good point about how deregulation has led to HIGHER utility prices. Certainly that was not the intention. I think the fault with this example is that the industry that you cite lacks serious competition. After all, communities only allow one line of each utility to be set. I think what should have happened is that line operators should be forced to sell space on their networks/lines (if it is technologically possible) to other companies at wholesale rates. That would create competition. And certainly you agree that a competitive market leads to lower unit costs?
The anti-foreign bias is definitely true, though it is manifested for reasons I believe have not been explained. I do not think that Americans, for the most part, are xenophobic. Not the ones who read books, anyway. I think that most Americans fear for the security of their jobs. And for good reason! If they lose their jobs, they lose their health care. The fact that employers pay for their employee's health care was quite an accident of history. Americans should start getting free, Universal health care so that American corporations are not burdened with the cost (WalMart is actually lobbying for Universal Health care. I know. Evil WalMart). As well, Americans should be supported through post-secondary education (it does not have to be free, but interest-free loans would be a nice start).
(Just to add - perhaps to combat the falling number of Engineers the Government should subsidize that level of education the most. Just a thought.)
I think that protectionism would be a great mistake. It does not make the distribution of wealth more equitable - it just creates a bunch of domestic fat cats making money off of consumers. Americans pay double the market rate for sugar, because the industry is protected by both tariffs and subsidies. I don't see how the average American American benefits from those tariffs and subsidies. Of course, jobs are saved, but is it really worth the cost?
I agree that the gains from free trade have so far been inequitable. But the gains ARE there. Ask any economist. The problem, of course, is how to make it more equitable. Free health services and education are a start, I think.
In terms of the "Make-work" bias, I think that you are missing the point. Unemployment is far from the sole economic indicator, and farther still from being the most important. Yet when politicians talk about the Economy they only talk about "jobs". Why? Because that is the only experience that the layman has about the economy. You argue that 'the strength of the community' is more important than overall productivity. That is false. The ONLY indicator of living standards is worker productivity. (A lot of research has gone into this over the years. Paul Krugman will get a Nobel prize for his work on it someday.) Just as it would not make sense take away shovels and replace them with spoons, it definitely would not make sense to limit productivity to increase employment.
In terms of pessimism, I think that Americans are right to be pessimistic. After all, the average worker's REAL wage has stagnated for the last ten years or so. Of course, many consumer goods are much cheaper thanks to trade with China, but those gains have nearly been eliminated thanks to higher utility costs. On that note, however, I do not think that things are terrible. They just are not getting better.
Anyways, I hope I didn't bore you too much.
Mithrandir86 on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I agree that his recommendations are slightly wonky, but his observations are made from some good, old rational Science
Allow me to assure you that this is bull of the first order. Guys like Caplan have gotten to eat out a lot in the past twenty-thirty years by selling the notion that the subject is a settled matter and we should all just sort of roll over for our neoclassical overlords, but that's a combination of PR and wishful thinking, not science.
I do not think that Libertarian is a dirty word, for starters. That is how I define myself when asked; it is not perfect, but it makes more sense than saying "Liberal" or "Conservative". Whereas I believe that trade should be free and unfettered, I also believe in Universal health care and free education.
I do not think that Libertarian is a dirty word, for starters. That is how I define myself when asked; it is not perfect, but it makes more sense than saying "Liberal" or "Conservative". Whereas I believe that trade should be free and unfettered, I also believe in Universal health care and free education.
Congratulations. You are a democrat.
You are not a libertarian however.
You show me a Democrat who believes in free trade, and I'll concede.
This is a real victory for the Syracuse candle-making industry. Our manufacturers deserve a level playing field and we owe it to them to make sure that others do not unfairly circumvent our fair trade practices. Syracuse has a proud history of candle production but attempts by importers to undercut our producers have put that tradition at risk. I am pleased that the Department of Commerce heeded our call to take action against these unfair practices and recognized the importance of this decision to local producers, especially here in Syracuse. We will continue to make the case on behalf of Syracuse candle-makers as the Commerce Department considers its final determination.
Let’s all acknowledge that to some degree globalization is here.… The world is smaller than it used to be. When we negotiate trade deals, we’ve got to make sure there are strong labor and environmental provisions in those trade deals.
Which is exactly the same as not supporting trade.
I do not think that Libertarian is a dirty word, for starters. That is how I define myself when asked; it is not perfect, but it makes more sense than saying "Liberal" or "Conservative". Whereas I believe that trade should be free and unfettered, I also believe in Universal health care and free education.
Congratulations. You are a democrat.
You are not a libertarian however.
You show me a Democrat who believes in free trade, and I'll concede.
An overwhelming majority of the Democrats on this very site are free trade.
Let’s all acknowledge that to some degree globalization is here.… The world is smaller than it used to be. When we negotiate trade deals, we’ve got to make sure there are strong labor and environmental provisions in those trade deals.
Which is exactly the same as not supporting trade.
No, protectionism is the opposite of free trade. Leveraging free trade agreements to get what we want is called international politics.
Let’s all acknowledge that to some degree globalization is here.… The world is smaller than it used to be. When we negotiate trade deals, we’ve got to make sure there are strong labor and environmental provisions in those trade deals.
Which is exactly the same as not supporting trade.
No, protectionism is the opposite of free trade. Leveraging free trade agreements to get what we want is called international politics.
I have never heard of political provisions in trade agreements leading to anything else other than the rejection of those agreements. Especially worker and environmental provisions. What Obama is basically saying is that he will not engage in any trade agreement with any country that will not require the elimination of that country's comparative advantage.
Let’s all acknowledge that to some degree globalization is here.… The world is smaller than it used to be. When we negotiate trade deals, we’ve got to make sure there are strong labor and environmental provisions in those trade deals.
Which is exactly the same as not supporting trade.
No, protectionism is the opposite of free trade. Leveraging free trade agreements to get what we want is called international politics.
I have never heard of political provisions in trade agreements leading to anything else other than the rejection of those agreements. Especially worker and environmental provisions. What Obama is basically saying is that he will not engage in any trade agreement with any country that will not require the elimination of that country's comparative advantage.
Let’s all acknowledge that to some degree globalization is here.… The world is smaller than it used to be. When we negotiate trade deals, we’ve got to make sure there are strong labor and environmental provisions in those trade deals.
Which is exactly the same as not supporting trade.
No, protectionism is the opposite of free trade. Leveraging free trade agreements to get what we want is called international politics.
I have never heard of political provisions in trade agreements leading to anything else other than the rejection of those agreements. Especially worker and environmental provisions. What Obama is basically saying is that he will not engage in any trade agreement with any country that will not require the elimination of that country's comparative advantage.
So, like every Free Trade agreement?
I think that you're confusing protected industries with political provisions (such as higher wages, health care benefits, Environmental laws). I do not think that industries should be protected through tariffs or subsidies. Those market distortions are unproductive, and cause more harm than they are worth.
I have never heard of political provisions in trade agreements leading to anything else other than the rejection of those agreements.
How many details do you actually know about the free trade arrangements we make?
NAFTA for instance is suplimented by both the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEO) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALO).
Posts
Hasn't donkey voting basically caused a bunch of controversy, even after random ballots?
Which is pretty much a case-in-point reminder that the US constitution, while nice, isn't all that and a bag of chips. Good democracy requires obligatory participation by all capable, or as close to as you can get without screwing people over some other way.
Its a right to vote, not an obligation.
Do you not get that I think it should be an obligation?
Why? Because it can be? Should it be mandatory for everyone to run for public office, because we can and it would make people more involved?
But not voting is in itself voicing an opinion.
It really isn't; its simply a lack of information - information I'd argue is important. Parallel example: in the data entry system at work where our soil survey data is stored, one test is described in terms of the level of reaction you see upon adding KCl solution to soil. It runs from 1-4, with one being "a little fizzing" and 4 being "wheee, mini volcano ow ow its spitting burning stuff out of the test tube at me". However, there's no "0", for "test performed, no reaction at all". This is a problem, because you just have to take it on faith that the test was actually performed at all, and there's no way that any worker isn't going to slip up and forget to record the info once in a while. The lack of an "abstain" vote and the lack of attention paid to what a high proportion of abstains on an individual issue means is similar to me, and similarly problematic. 'Abstains' strike me as a far more effective measure of voter discontent with available options, and I'm willing to go so far as to say that if the number of "abstains" is high enough then the decision should be scrapped and the process begin anew.
I know that last part never happens anywhere, but in the parliament here and the Senate/House of Reps in your country, abstain votes are recorded and especially high or low numbers of abstains tend to be at least commented on. Citizen voting should be treated the same. If you're not allowing your elected officials to pike on voting, you shouldn't be letting citizens do it either.
If you think of a jury as a voting system, it works pretty well. Randomly select 12 people to "vote." They are now so powerful, that they feel compelled to at least think about their vote thoroughly.
I would love to have a "none of the above" box on the ballot.
It might go some way to move the criteria for winning an election away from "being better than the alternatives".
Whatever. Those campaigns are just one of the ways we socialize our youth with an ethic of voting.
Most people's first vote(s) aren't the most meticulously reasoned things, because it takes a while to get your feet politically.
Ha ha, this reminds me of hearing on the radio that a group from some relatively together African country (Kenya? Ghana?) offered to supply election observers in 2004. We probably could have used their help...
I don't know, it doesn't seem like negative campaigning is really on the list of things the U.N. intervenes on.
I notice the U.N. doesn't intervene in Italy. They have all manner of problems and are not a superpower.
I don't they think they had deliberate disenfranchisement of poor and ethnic minorities to the extent the US did. It also seems to be more egalitarian - each side claims that the other cheated.
Well, the UN doesn't really intervene in Europe outside of the brand-new Republics and the occasional punitive action in pseudo-European Turkey. I didn't really mean that negative campaigning is an international incident; just that it shows that our central actors (and executives and enforcers) in our democratic system are often given to subverting the basic premise of participatory democracy.
As it points out, Caplan states that there are four biases at work:
And again, there's the issue of his biases - considering he's aligned with Cato, he's not just an economist, but instead is probably most in tune with the Chicago school. However, discussing the merits and flaws of that system is definately off topic here.
And the great majority of voters are workers.
Hence why there's been such a push to get us to self-identify as consumers. Makes the crap more palatable.
I don't think you should criticize him for making impartial observations. I agree that his recommendations are slightly wonky, but his observations are made from some good, old rational Science, while yours are based on first-hand experiences at best (though they are infinitely more likely the empty rhetoric of some populist politician).
Fix'd
I do think that we have a significant difference of political opinion, but hopefully we can find some sort of common ground.
I do not think that Libertarian is a dirty word, for starters. That is how I define myself when asked; it is not perfect, but it makes more sense than saying "Liberal" or "Conservative". Whereas I believe that trade should be free and unfettered, I also believe in Universal health care and free education. Pure, unregulated capitalism probably would not be as beneficial as Milton Friedman would like. After all, there should be balance. I think we can both agree with that. Whereas you would believe that the Government should be more powerful in some areas, I think that I would disagree with you.
Anyways, I would just like to start off by saying that a lot of your observations, especially as your post progresses, seem to be quite weak.
You start off strong - you have good point about how deregulation has led to HIGHER utility prices. Certainly that was not the intention. I think the fault with this example is that the industry that you cite lacks serious competition. After all, communities only allow one line of each utility to be set. I think what should have happened is that line operators should be forced to sell space on their networks/lines (if it is technologically possible) to other companies at wholesale rates. That would create competition. And certainly you agree that a competitive market leads to lower unit costs?
The anti-foreign bias is definitely true, though it is manifested for reasons I believe have not been explained. I do not think that Americans, for the most part, are xenophobic. Not the ones who read books, anyway. I think that most Americans fear for the security of their jobs. And for good reason! If they lose their jobs, they lose their health care. The fact that employers pay for their employee's health care was quite an accident of history. Americans should start getting free, Universal health care so that American corporations are not burdened with the cost (WalMart is actually lobbying for Universal Health care. I know. Evil WalMart). As well, Americans should be supported through post-secondary education (it does not have to be free, but interest-free loans would be a nice start).
(Just to add - perhaps to combat the falling number of Engineers the Government should subsidize that level of education the most. Just a thought.)
I think that protectionism would be a great mistake. It does not make the distribution of wealth more equitable - it just creates a bunch of domestic fat cats making money off of consumers. Americans pay double the market rate for sugar, because the industry is protected by both tariffs and subsidies. I don't see how the average American American benefits from those tariffs and subsidies. Of course, jobs are saved, but is it really worth the cost?
I agree that the gains from free trade have so far been inequitable. But the gains ARE there. Ask any economist. The problem, of course, is how to make it more equitable. Free health services and education are a start, I think.
In terms of the "Make-work" bias, I think that you are missing the point. Unemployment is far from the sole economic indicator, and farther still from being the most important. Yet when politicians talk about the Economy they only talk about "jobs". Why? Because that is the only experience that the layman has about the economy. You argue that 'the strength of the community' is more important than overall productivity. That is false. The ONLY indicator of living standards is worker productivity. (A lot of research has gone into this over the years. Paul Krugman will get a Nobel prize for his work on it someday.) Just as it would not make sense take away shovels and replace them with spoons, it definitely would not make sense to limit productivity to increase employment.
In terms of pessimism, I think that Americans are right to be pessimistic. After all, the average worker's REAL wage has stagnated for the last ten years or so. Of course, many consumer goods are much cheaper thanks to trade with China, but those gains have nearly been eliminated thanks to higher utility costs. On that note, however, I do not think that things are terrible. They just are not getting better.
Anyways, I hope I didn't bore you too much.
Allow me to assure you that this is bull of the first order. Guys like Caplan have gotten to eat out a lot in the past twenty-thirty years by selling the notion that the subject is a settled matter and we should all just sort of roll over for our neoclassical overlords, but that's a combination of PR and wishful thinking, not science.
Congratulations. You are a democrat.
You are not a libertarian however.
You show me a Democrat who believes in free trade, and I'll concede.
God, all of them.
Though usualy they preface it with "Oh, but lets also not have different rules for different nations"
Bill Clinton, yes. Hilary, not as much.
Obama?
Which is exactly the same as not supporting trade.
An overwhelming majority of the Democrats on this very site are free trade.
Of course. Fair Trade is worse than protectionism, because at least protectionists have no illusions about their beliefs.
No, protectionism is the opposite of free trade. Leveraging free trade agreements to get what we want is called international politics.
I have never heard of political provisions in trade agreements leading to anything else other than the rejection of those agreements. Especially worker and environmental provisions. What Obama is basically saying is that he will not engage in any trade agreement with any country that will not require the elimination of that country's comparative advantage.
So, like every Free Trade agreement?
I think that you're confusing protected industries with political provisions (such as higher wages, health care benefits, Environmental laws). I do not think that industries should be protected through tariffs or subsidies. Those market distortions are unproductive, and cause more harm than they are worth.
How many details do you actually know about the free trade arrangements we make?
NAFTA for instance is suplimented by both the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEO) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALO).