This is what fewer regulations looks like

[fskimospy]

We are not a very good example of this because we've simply outsourced production. We could not produce goods to scale at the same price point as China, with all our productivity and advances, without trading something else...either an increase in cost of goods or services, which then shifts the poverty line, or an increase in pollution, which is a detriment to health and welfare.

The poverty line is only relevant for the country it is in. Labor-intensive goods would be more expensive if we made them here, but total US manufacturing output is at an all time high while pollution is vastly lower than it was in the past. We are a perfect example of how wealth allows you to increase production while maintaining environmental standards. Now that other countries are becoming wealthier due to free trade they are starting to follow in our footsteps. Look at how China is scrapping coal plants and instead is becoming one of the largest producers of renewable energy in the world. This would have been unthinkable except for the benefits from free trade. It truly is one of those few cases in economics where everyone wins, which is why opposition to free trade is so deeply silly.

Ask those workers if they are willing to trade increased wages for breathable air and drinkable water.

Just so I understand you, you're now conceding that the increase in inequality likely doesn't matter to those who have seen their wages increase from trade? Regardless, China's government has had popular support for years, primarily due to the economic expansion the country has experienced, the backbone of which is free trade.

 

[fskimospy]

God, why are you so conservative lol.

Seriously though, its perfectly reasonable that trade can be a net reduction in pollution. Take CA as an example. CA is not a great place to grow things in terms of water. CA is consuming so much water for food production, that the salt water in the deltas is going too far up stream and killing life. If CA were to import food from more places, the net reduction to the environment would be worth the gas burned.

Not always is this how things work, but sometimes producing local is worse.

*good on Spy for arguing for something that is right, even when its unpopular.

Yes, all things being equal trade can result in reduced pollution as well. Comparative advantage is often about efficiency of production and all things being equal more efficient production is less polluting production.

The last 30-40 years or so have seen some of the largest decreases in extreme poverty in world history, primarily due to the industrialization of India and China. This industrialization would have been impossible without trade and so it's simply baffling to see people who claim to care about human suffering so strenuously oppose one of the greatest vehicles for reducing human suffering the world has ever seen.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, all things being equal trade can result in reduced pollution as well. Comparative advantage is often about efficiency of production and all things being equal more efficient production is less polluting production.

The last 30-40 years or so have seen some of the largest decreases in extreme poverty in world history, primarily due to the industrialization of India and China. This industrialization would have been impossible without trade and so it's simply baffling to see people who claim to care about human suffering so strenuously oppose one of the greatest vehicles for reducing human suffering the world has ever seen.

The best way to get wages here in the US higher is to raise the standard of living globally. I expect the Right to be isolationist right now with Trump, but I fear the Left will be right there with him.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The poverty line is only relevant for the country it is in. Labor-intensive goods would be more expensive if we made them here, but total US manufacturing output is at an all time high while pollution is vastly lower than it was in the past. We are a perfect example of how wealth allows you to increase production while maintaining environmental standards. Now that other countries are becoming wealthier due to free trade they are starting to follow in our footsteps. Look at how China is scrapping coal plants and instead is becoming one of the largest producers of renewable energy in the world. This would have been unthinkable except for the benefits from free trade. It truly is one of those few cases in economics where everyone wins, which is why opposition to free trade is so deeply silly.

Just so I understand you, you're now conceding that the increase in inequality likely doesn't matter to those who have seen their wages increase from trade? Regardless, China's government has had popular support for years, primarily due to the economic expansion the country has experienced, the backbone of which is free trade.

I am saying it is a choice between lesser evils. I also see an increased number of upper middle class Chinese parking a tremendous amount of money in west coast real estate, and relocating their families as well.

We've shifted production to Mexico, yet a similar dynamic is not in play.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes, all things being equal trade can result in reduced pollution as well. Comparative advantage is often about efficiency of production and all things being equal more efficient production is less polluting production.

The last 30-40 years or so have seen some of the largest decreases in extreme poverty in world history, primarily due to the industrialization of India and China. This industrialization would have been impossible without trade and so it's simply baffling to see people who claim to care about human suffering so strenuously oppose one of the greatest vehicles for reducing human suffering the world has ever seen.

Because you have to couple industrialization with human rights. London and New York were fairly oppressive places until the dawn of worker rights. I don't believe the living conditions in some factories is better than poverty.

 

[zinfamous]

This is why I find it ironic that liberals are such proponents of free trade. Manufacturing processes and fossil fuels cause pollution. If you regulate them to be cleaner, the cost of goods go up. But if the cost of goods go up, the house of cards economic facade comes crashing down.

Can't have it both ways. All we did was outsource our pollution to Asia.

Wow, the pillar of the modern Republican platform for 5 or more decades--free trade--is suddenly a liberal invention?

news to me!

 

[zinfamous]

The population density in China versus here in American has nothing to do with it I am sure.

yeah. population density is super relevant to whether or not a factory is allowed to dump heavy metals into water reservoirs.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Wow, the pillar of the modern Republican platform for 5 or more decades--free trade--is suddenly a liberal invention?

news to me!

Trump is the first Presidential candidate in my lifetime to vocally oppose free trade. The Clintons and Obama were advocates for it.

 

[Thebobo]

You asked me to cite examples in an area that is far outside my area of expertise. I hire people to make those decisions for me. I do that through a process called voting. I stated that there will be changes and I base that on the Trump win and which party controls Congress. I stand behind that assertion.

I'm not going to get into some circle-jerk discussion with you centered around your fears. I'm certain you don't like that but I am equally certain that you'll get over it. Or not. Makes no difference to me.

Maybe those folks whom you hire that make decisions for you should post here instead of you.

 

[zinfamous]

Trump is the first Presidential candidate in my lifetime to vocally oppose free trade. The Clintons and Obama were advocates for it.

and so were Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Nixon, et al.

Why do you ignore the Republicans that have always been the largest proponents of free trade, and point only to horrible liberals?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Trump is the first Presidential candidate in my lifetime to vocally oppose free trade. The Clintons and Obama were advocates for it.

and dubya?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

and so were Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Nixon, et al.

Why do you ignore the Republicans that have always been the largest proponents of free trade, and point only to horrible liberals?

to be fair, he could have been born in 1994. so....

 

[fskimospy]

The best way to get wages here in the US higher is to raise the standard of living globally. I expect the Right to be isolationist right now with Trump, but I fear the Left will be right there with him.

I think opposition to free trade is a bit overblown but it's definitely higher now than it was, especially since the right has done a 180 on the issue. I agree that the left has traditionally been more skeptical of free trade, it's one of modern liberalism's shortcomings. It's sad to see modern conservatism turning away from one of the areas I agreed with it, but modern conservatism seems to have little to do with actual conservatism anymore.

 

[dainthomas]

If you guys actually think that process is how all regulations come about and are continually evaluated, you're either incredibly naive or stupid. Take your pick.

I'm not one to think regulations are automatically bad, but done incorrectly they create as many (or more) issues as they solve.

I imagine you have a list of specific regulations that can be eliminated without being detrimental to public health and/or safety.

 

[bshole]

If you guys actually think that process is how all regulations come about and are continually evaluated, you're either incredibly naive or stupid. Take your pick.

I'm not one to think regulations are automatically bad, but done incorrectly they create as many (or more) issues as they solve.

I really don't understand you. You appear giddy with the prospect that we open our corporations to pollute the water and air. Was this really where Trump got his support from.... by people upset that our water/air were too clean? That is a thing?

Don't get too excited though. You only got half of the the field covered, there is still NIMBYISM to overcome. That will require changes to the tort system to prevent the people directly harmed by the increased pollution from suing EVEN though the published science can prove the harm. I imagine that you are completely down with that as well and we all should expect and support a Trump assault on the tort system to fully allow corporations to pollute without consequence.

I just can't comprehend your mindset as you are not a corporate master. You want society and the environment harmed so corporate scum can make bigger profits? Why?

 

[realibrad]

I think opposition to free trade is a bit overblown but it's definitely higher now than it was, especially since the right has done a 180 on the issue. I agree that the left has traditionally been more skeptical of free trade, it's one of modern liberalism's shortcomings. It's sad to see modern conservatism turning away from one of the areas I agreed with it, but modern conservatism seems to have little to do with actual conservatism anymore.

Agreed. Hell, they are not even for limited government anymore, just different government.

 

[Atreus21]

That's true. Some of our nation's worst superfund sites are in rural areas.

Some of our worst air pollution is in agricultural areas (burning off fields and irrigation ditches).

Uh, Los Angeles?

 

[IronWing]

Uh, Los Angeles?

El Centro, Fresno, Denver

 

[Atreus21]

I think opposition to free trade is a bit overblown but it's definitely higher now than it was, especially since the right has done a 180 on the issue. I agree that the left has traditionally been more skeptical of free trade, it's one of modern liberalism's shortcomings. It's sad to see modern conservatism turning away from one of the areas I agreed with it, but modern conservatism seems to have little to do with actual conservatism anymore.

I'm as supportive of free trade as I've ever been. So are plenty of conservatives.

 

[PokerGuy]

Labor-intensive goods would be more expensive if we made them here, but total US manufacturing output is at an all time high while pollution is vastly lower than it was in the past. We are a perfect example of how wealth allows you to increase production while maintaining environmental standards.

Not really. All it shows is that we've shifted production to other things that are not as environmentally messy, and moved production of those things to places with less stringent environmental restrictions (like China). It's not like we found better innovate ways to produce the same stuff as before more efficiently and more environmentally friendly, we just let someone else produce them because it's cheaper than us making those things here.

Yes, all things being equal trade can result in reduced pollution as well. Comparative advantage is often about efficiency of production and all things being equal more efficient production is less polluting production.

All things being equal... but they are not equal. First, we need to distinguish between "more efficient" production versus "cheaper". We've outsourced a lot of production to China because it is cheaper. It's not necessarily more efficient, and definitely not lower pollution. It's just cheaper, and the environmental cost is borne by China instead of by us. More efficient production is not necessarily less polluting either. For example, it takes 50 people to build 1 widget. Now I have a new method where I use 1 person plus 1 pound of highly environmentally damaging compound x (which is not expensive) to make widget. The new method is more efficient and cheaper, but certainly not less polluting.

In general I'm a proponent of free trade. In general it benefits everyone.... provided both partners have similar human rights and environmental regulations. Things get a lot messier when vastly different standards are in play. My default position is for free trade and against protectionism though.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. All it shows is that we've shifted production to other things that are not as environmentally messy, and moved production of those things to places with less stringent environmental restrictions (like China). It's not like we found better innovate ways to produce the same stuff as before more efficiently and more environmentally friendly, we just let someone else produce them because it's cheaper than us making those things here.

The idea that pollution is fixed is totally ridiculous and at odds with easily observable reality. Some of the reason we have less pollution today than before is that some things aren't made here anymore, but a whole hell of a lot of it is that we've made massive advances in how we produce things and how we remediate pollution.

All things being equal... but they are not equal. First, we need to distinguish between "more efficient" production versus "cheaper".

In an economics sense cheaper and more efficient are identical terms.

We've outsourced a lot of production to China because it is cheaper. It's not necessarily more efficient, and definitely not lower pollution. It's just cheaper, and the environmental cost is borne by China instead of by us. More efficient production is not necessarily less polluting either. For example, it takes 50 people to build 1 widget. Now I have a new method where I use 1 person plus 1 pound of highly environmentally damaging compound x (which is not expensive) to make widget. The new method is more efficient and cheaper, but certainly not less polluting.

Yes, negative externalities like pollution need to be factored into the total cost, but if after factoring in environmental costs the net price is lower then it is by definition more efficient. Labor factor costs are very low in China, so even if a robot here can produce with one person's labor what 10 people in China can do, if their total cost per person is 9% of what ours is then their production is more efficient by definition.

In general I'm a proponent of free trade. In general it benefits everyone.... provided both partners have similar human rights and environmental regulations. Things get a lot messier when vastly different standards are in play. My default position is for free trade and against protectionism though.

Saying 'I'm for free trade so long as countries make the same choices we do' isn't being for free trade at all.

 

[Starbuck1975]

and so were Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Nixon, et al.

Why do you ignore the Republicans that have always been the largest proponents of free trade, and point only to horrible liberals?

Because I accept that Republicans only have the interests of the wealthy in mind, so I start from a position of expecting less of them and not being terribly surprised when they fvck over the middle class or the planet.

If someone is overtly trying to fvck me, it doesn't surprise or offend me when they do.

Liberals say they want to help and have these lofty goals of social and global justice, but they too fvck me all the same. Maybe not as deeply or as violently, but it sure as hell wasn't consensual.

 

[interchange]

This forum isn't a therapy group. Tell your shrink about these fears and if prescribed meds, take them.

Please PM me your name, address, DOB, and a phone number for the pharmacy of your choosing and I'll phone in a refill for your Haldol.

(I actually have nothing against your post. Just couldn't pass up on the opportunity)

 

[thraashman]

This is just more of that Chinese hoax.

 

[PokerGuy]

The idea that pollution is fixed is totally ridiculous and at odds with easily observable reality. Some of the reason we have less pollution today than before is that some things aren't made here anymore, but a whole hell of a lot of it is that we've made massive advances in how we produce things and how we remediate pollution.

Back to standard eski-m.o. again? Misstate and misinterpret my position and than argue against your made up position. I didn't say it was fixed, that's your misinterpretation. You said that our increase in production at the same time as a pollution reduction is proof that wealth will let you increase production and maintain environmental standards. It is not, it just shows that there's been a combination of things going on: we've gotten better at producing with less pollution, we've sent production of environmentally messy things overseas, and we've changed what we produce vs what others produce and we import.

In an economics sense cheaper and more efficient are identical terms.

No, they aren't necessarily. It depends on your definition, and whether you include all the true costs or not. That's why I said you have to define what exactly you're referring to. When we outsourced a lot of production to China, it's not because they are cheaper with all true costs (environment etc) included. It's because it was cheaper to us since we don't bare the environmental costs. China does.

Saying 'I'm for free trade so long as countries make the same choices we do' isn't being for free trade at all.

Back to the eski-m.o. again. That's not what I said, it's your imagination at work.