Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Jeremy
Is this you? Claim Profile »
8 months ago
in Palin: Maverick or Rogue? on The Washington Independent
How can Palin claim Obama is a "socialist" when she is arguing for nationalization of natural resources? The Republican ticket has been an erratic and inconsistent mess, lurching from John the Populist to John the McCarthyist. Palin has been no more consistent. She delivers the lines a little better, although the folksiness is a little over-the-top. She reminds me of John Edwards a bit in that and other regards: the faux-folksiness, the preening self regard of $400 haircuts and shopping binges, the rumors of infidelity. . .
2 years ago
in Krugman on Trade and Inequality on Will Wilkinson
Two things: (1) Production may be "cheaper" in China because pollution is permitted, (2) Labor costs are relative to labor's bargaining strength, which is determined by state policies.
Wrt (1), I think that we ought to see pollution as a subsidy; it's actually free waste disposal. Hence, it's a barrier to free trade and an impediment to realizing the on-paper benefits of markets. We ought to be orienting organizations like the WTO toward harmonizing nations' environmental standards by penalizing countries that subsidize industry through free waste disposal.
Wrt (2), I would argue for much the same. We need to set an international baseline for labor rights like collective bargaining. Libertarians might even agree that failure by the state to protect workers' rights to voluntarily form unions artificially deflates the price of labor. Certainly, libertarians will agree that state taxation schemes designed to drive farming villagers into cities' industrial job markets artificially deflates wages.
Conclusion: Fair trade is the way to realize the on-paper benefits of free trade. Moreover, a fair trade message that includes promoting international environmental and labor standards along with the opposition to tariffs and direct subsidies commonly associated with the "free trade" banner is an effective response to rising populist protectionism of the US political left. Of course, this all needs to be weighed with the foreign policy goals achieved through engagement with countries like China, but I do think the goals of a non-protectionist fair trade can at least be furthered.
Wrt (1), I think that we ought to see pollution as a subsidy; it's actually free waste disposal. Hence, it's a barrier to free trade and an impediment to realizing the on-paper benefits of markets. We ought to be orienting organizations like the WTO toward harmonizing nations' environmental standards by penalizing countries that subsidize industry through free waste disposal.
Wrt (2), I would argue for much the same. We need to set an international baseline for labor rights like collective bargaining. Libertarians might even agree that failure by the state to protect workers' rights to voluntarily form unions artificially deflates the price of labor. Certainly, libertarians will agree that state taxation schemes designed to drive farming villagers into cities' industrial job markets artificially deflates wages.
Conclusion: Fair trade is the way to realize the on-paper benefits of free trade. Moreover, a fair trade message that includes promoting international environmental and labor standards along with the opposition to tariffs and direct subsidies commonly associated with the "free trade" banner is an effective response to rising populist protectionism of the US political left. Of course, this all needs to be weighed with the foreign policy goals achieved through engagement with countries like China, but I do think the goals of a non-protectionist fair trade can at least be furthered.