|
| It's a reasonable critique and it's been used by pro protectionist and unions forever. Capitalism isn't perfect. Neither is free trade. The problem is, they are both the best in aggregate for "do the most good" - that is, they raise the standard of living collectively in aggregate more so than other systems. There is a lot of data from a very broad range of sources if you search the research.
I do not think the US would be economically ahead of where we are today had we protected more manufacturing jobs via government intervention. Everything in economics is a trade off. (Ignore items of national security as that is a special case).
It sounds like your pitch is essentially to close up the income disparity. If this is your goal, there are other ways to accomplish this without tariffs. I personally am not for transfer payments like they exist today, but that is exactly why we have the tax and welfare system we have today, at least in part. Higher incomes are taxed at higher rates and lower incomes are actually net receivers instead of tax payers. Believe it or not, the status quo is actually more efficient than protectionist policy to accomplish the "more in the middle" goal. Because protectionist policy lowers that GDP per capita and tax receipts fall.
You can't get something for nothing in economics. I will say that there is of course a human side to all of this. Perhaps your angle is go pro protectionist for "more in the middle" knowing we shrink the economy in aggregate a bit but increase people's dignity. Then it becomes a bit more altruistic and morphs into a political social issue in a sense... politicians love doing this as a justification I have noticed. Then the merits are less about numbers and data.
Edited by reformedbanker 4/14/2025 19:53
| |
|
what i`ve observed about free trade.
