It was lazy hunt and pecking on this tablet. I meant it as concise if not entirely accurate term to describe the aspects of a mixed economy that aren’t free market.
Okay, I’m gonna go back to this post then…
Well, sometimes “pricing” isn’t “efficient.” There’s what theoretical markets should do, but then we go into the real world and find a market not behaving the way theoretical markets are supposed to. At that point, someone who’s serious about economics will start trying to figure out why the market didn’t do what theory says it should. And that means proposing models and crunching numbers and looking at historical data. And maybe after doing all that, we figure out that for this particular market, a government regulation is needed to get “efficient pricing” (however we want to define that).
But, aside from that, this argument about “pricing” falls into the same problem as the argument about “comparative advantage.” I don’t really care about the price of ping-pong tables. But, if I start hearing that ping-pong table manufacturers are using slave labor or dumping lead into the water, then I’m going to want a mechanism to stop that. Telling me that the market priced ping-pong tables efficiently doesn’t address that concern, just as the “comparative advantage” argument doesn’t address the concerns about national security, labor rights, environment, etc.
If there’s a simple explanation for a market failure then it can be corrected. Like for example a monopoly or cartel. Problem is, the government creates most monopolies and cartels. Breaking up a monopoly or cartel the government finds undesirable(usually for political motivations, not economic), isn’t really much help when the government is turning around and supporting the practice in another industry(again, always for political purposes).
Plus in other countries you often have the practice of backing “national champions”, giant corporations that are not only shielded from foreign competition, but domestic as well. I don’t think anyone can argue that national champions are good for economic growth, although they may be good for national prestige.
Dude, your post #53 completely ignores the concept of market failures, and now you think you can give me a lecture about them? You keep doing this in this thread. You make a post that shows a faulty understanding of economics, I correct it, and then you try to lecture me about a topic which you showed you clearly didn’t understand initially. Why do you think you have anything useful to say here?
But, okay. Simple failures can be corrected simply. Many times by government regulation.
Well, since I haven’t seen anyone advocate in this thread for government creating monopolies, what does this have to do with anything? This is just you repeating over and over that you don’t like government action. Okay, we get it.
But, if you understood economics, you’d know there are some circumstances where a monopoly can be economically beneficial. Not many, but they exist.
Okay, but this is actually an argument against free-trade. Can you figure out why?
It’s an argument for free trade, because national champions can’t compete with foreign industries that are lean and mean, honed by competitive pressures at home.
Well, except that there are a lot of instances where governments can champion local industries without impacting trade directly, like subsidies or labelling requirements or property ownership requirements or the like. The WTO addresses a lot of these things, but it doesn’t address nearly all of them (and I don’t like the way it addresses many of them, but that’s neither here or there).
So, while it’s all well and good to say that in theory “free trade” will force competition on the national champion, in the real world, there are all sorts of tricks countries can use to protect their national champions. And at that point, talking about comparative advantage becomes pointless, because we’re dealing with a rigged system.
Now, I know, in your theoretical world, countries wouldn’t be allowed to do all that other stuff either, but that’s not the world we live in. But if you want to make that theoretical-world argument, I already described a very simplified version of that argument in my first post in this thread. We’ve already covered the theoretical ground, so what is the point of coming back to it over and over again?
Which part do you need expanded? Do you not know what rent-seeking is, or do you not understand how to benefit from it?
The United States has been the world’s largest (relatively) free trade zone for over 200 years. If the states had not been prohibited from imposing protectionist measures in the constitution, we would be much poorer. No idea where you thought the United States might be a feather in your cap.
In Japan, they were closed off from trade for centuries, and became a world economic superpower nearly overnight when they opened up and stopped killing people. Now I’m wondering where you are getting your protectionist propaganda from.
Germany was decentralized up until the 19th century. The period before this unfortunate development was marked by marvelous developments in the sciences and drastic increases in the standard of living. Small states have no choice but to be free traders, because they have a small population and must rely on the division of labor to acquire certain needed goods. Since that time Germany, while having some hiccups along the way you may have heard of, has built on and benefitted from its industrial and scientific pedigree made possible by its time as a decentralized region of free trade. Germany is a more difficult case to understand because it requires a longer scope of historical knowledge, so I’ll give you a pass on that one. But in order for your claim to be true you would have to say that 500 years of nurturing academic, cultural, and legal institutions has less to do with Germany’s economic development than a few haphazard measures passed by economically illiterate politicians.
EVERYONE, stick to asserting your opinions based on your interpretation of acts and STOP making snide remarks about the perceptions or abilities of your opponents.
[ /Moderating ]
You know, I was about to go into detail about Japan’s tariff policy during the Meiji restoration, but I don’t think there’s any point. Because for you to post this, shows how off-topic you are. We’re not talking about intra-national trade issues here, we’re talking about international trade issues.
And in addition to this, I don’t see how anybody who has a cursory understanding of US history can pretend that the US didn’t have protectionist policies during its industrialization period. I mean, seriously. Start a thread about the civil war here, and a bunch of people will rush in to give you a big lecture about US tariff policy. Back in the day, everyone thought that you needed protectionist policies to industrialize, and the US was no exception.
You’re missing the point. The US was a free trade zone despite the fact that the South was much poorer and paid lower wages to workers. National vs. international is arbitrary as far as trade goes because there are some nations that are more economically equivalent to each other than regions within nations. The North had more in common with Britain than to the South, yet free trade with the South was compulsory.
Hee. I found this post by WillFarnaby in a thread about the civil war:
Wow, Lincoln wanted to invade the South to collect tariffs. But, yet the US didn’t have protectionist policies! Amazing!
I’m not trying to hijack this thread into a debate about the civil war. Only pointing out that when it suits WillFarnaby, the US had tariffs, but when it doesn’t, the US didn’t have them.
There was virtually no international trade in Japan until the late 1800s. This resulted in poverty. Japan saw increases in standard of living as they began to shed these protectionist policies.
What I said was the United States was and has always been a huge free trade zone. If the several states had adopted protectionism, wealth would not have compounded as it did.
The dichotomy you draw between international and “intra-national” trade is a false one.
Re-read.
Which industries do you think were helped by protectionism in the United States?
No, it’s not arbitrary, because countries back then (and to a large extent today) didn’t redistribute wealth internationally or build infrastructure internationally or have common trade/tariff policies or use the same currency or have industrial policy internationally or have free movement of labor. There’s a significant distinction between intra-national and international trade.
It’s funny. Even though I’ve shown you numerous times that you are operating with a number of fallacies, you still think you can lecture me.
So, you’re admitting now that the US had tariffs?
Lol. This is complete nonsense.
I never said they didn’t have tariffs, sir. I repeat, the United States was and is a huge free trade zone, within which billions of dollars of tariff-free transactions occur over thousands of miles of diverse terrain and between regions of disparate industrial specializations.
Yes, and there’s a free trade zone between Los Angeles County and Orange County. So what?
We’re talking about international trade issues here.
Only because tariffs exist, that other stuff you mentioned is irrelevant.