Worked out well for America. Protectionist laws are a legitimate tool for social and economic progress.
The fact that America, with its very transparent political/legislative/corporate-grievances system would be recorded more often by this aggregator, is not surprising. In other words, this aggregator is going to be biased to record more trade-related events coming from more transparent nations that have more corporations located inside of them, and whose corporations will tend to try to resolve their trade disputes in the courts.
But I guess you couldn't be bothered to investigate the numbers when you could just cite BusinessInsider.
Credit Suisse did the research and reported the chart+numbers.
From Global Trade Alert's website: 'Global Trade Alert provides real-time information on <i>state measures</i> taken during the current global downturn that are likely to affect foreign commerce.' It is not a list of petitions by companies.
Here's the original report from CS: https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?document... appears on page 20)
And Trump is all about protectionism. If America wasn't the most protectionist country before, it certainly will be very soon.
It's also widely regarded as one of the least corrupt nations. [2] Transparency and low-corruption are two things that very frequently go hand-in-hand.
[1] http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/transparency-full-...
"Denmark [the US came in #11] is the most transparent country, according to more than 8,000 informed elites from four different regions who filled out surveys for the 2016 Best Countries rankings. The rankings, formed in partnership with brand strategy firm BAV Consulting and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, aim to gauge global perceptions of the world's biggest economies in terms of specific attributes associated with countries."
On corruption the US is listed at #16 by transparency international, ahead of France and Japan, but behind Australia and the UK:
Mentioning Trump is just FUD and indirection. You can mention him if he's elected and if he manages to enact protectionist policies.
You are attacking a straw man. Find me another data source that refutes GTA and Credit Suisse.
Peace.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Rallying the crowd for up-votes (even for another user's post) falls pretty much in the same ballpark.
The End of Globalization or a more Multipolar World?
https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?document...
As in, Country A takes 2 actions that affects $1 in trade. Country B decides in 1 action that no imports are allowed. And so it concludes Country A is clearly more restrictive.
Does that conclusion seem correct to you? Don't you think you need more information than just that?
Just not technological progress.
The auto manufacturers in the U.S. are a prime example of how protectionism stagnated industry development.
I was under the impression that anti-protectionism was one of the least controversial positions among economics. Obviously it can help the specific local industries that are being protected from competition, but it seems almost obvious to me that it's going to be a net negative for the people of India. (I am not an economist.)
It is, but I think this says more about the sorry state of economics than it does about whether protectionism is ever a good idea.
I'm not an economist, but I've gotten the impression from reading lots of articles like this, that it is net negative overall, as in, world wide. But I have never, ever seen a source claim that it is net negative on a national or local level outside of very, very narrowly defined parameters. I have, however, read academic papers that state the opposite.
Let's use NAFTA as an example as the canonical example. A corporation that makes tires moves to Mexico. As a result, tires for everyone in America are now half price, people who had no jobs in Mexico before now have jobs, which helps build out Mexican infrastructure, 20k people across the US no no longer have jobs; but the US economy is healthy, so those people will hopefully be okay and the US economy will likely not even notice such a slight change in labor demand.
Net result: 320 million people have cheaper tires in the US, Mexicans get better jobs, infrastructure and technology, 20k us lose jobs, the corporation saves money, and hopefully reinvests in something to stay competitive.
Using the above scenario, it is easy to see why any legislation against this behavior is seen as damaging and a net loss.
Lets further assume, that the US passes legislation that trailer hitch manufacturers have to pay an import tarriff from Mexico. Using the above scenario, an economist would say not only are you damaging what should be a net positive economic change, and artifically manipulating prices, but chances are Mexico will pass a law adding a tarrif to rubber imports, which will hurt your tire corporation in retaliation. And now the whole thing starts falling apart, with economic losses.
The counter arguments start with the following:
1) The above scenario assumes that those 20k people can find new jobs. If they can't, the math now becomes something along the lines of: 20000 people * 30000 $/year income >?< 320000000 people * 1000 $ saved for a set of tires * 1/6 (once every 6 or so years) + 20000 people * democracy destabalizing factor * wealth inequality factor
2) Before NAFTA, let's say there were 6 tire making companies in the US, one in detroit, one in newark, etc. Then one of them moves to Mexico City, and helps build up the local technical knowledge and infrastructure needs to support that industry. When the next 5 companies choose to move to Mexico, they will have the choice between also moving to Mexico city, or spending the money to do that same work elsewhere. So you may very well end up with 6 companies operating out of mexico city. While these firms will now be competing against each other, what you've also done, now is replace all of the economies that used to support those industries across the US, with one centralized economy around Mexico City. That's going to be a massive decrease in competition, job growth, etc, overall. Read this for more information: http://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html
Adam Smith already (and lots of other economists since) have argued for unilateral free trade.
> That's going to be a massive decrease in competition, job growth, etc, overall [when producers move to a cluster].
Can you expand on that? I don't see how---especially if we agree that the clustering is more economically efficient. (If we don't agree on that, we need to talk about it first.)
It's straight-forward to get a healthy enough economy to provide full employment. (Not `easy', because things are seldom easy in politics.) We even know how to afford a social safety net at the same time.
To not keep you in suspense: - tell the central bank to keep nominal GDP level on a stable growth path - untax labour and capital, put all tax burden on land (whose supply is perfectly inelastic) - use the tax to finance public infrastructure and a social safety net
If you are feeling like it add:
- remove most red tape from the labour market (the part that prevents hiring and firing; keep OSHA and the like)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/10/monetary...
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use...
(Not that the Economist is the best source for everything, but they write short pieces to the point.)
Citation needed. This is still a controversial issue in policy, and anyone certain of any one side has no idea what they're talking about. There is evidence it net hurt jobs. There is evidence it net gained jobs for the US.
Of course it was just another attack on the middle class. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/are-unio...
PS: I don't 100% agree with this, but it's a viewpoint I rarely see on HN and fits the discussion.
You paint a pretty bleak picture. Then I read firsthand reports by someone like yummyfajitas who lives and works there - https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=11766615&goto=item%3Fi... According to that, it is the US that's in the dumps. India has jobs for everyone at every level, whereas in the US people are living in filthy homes because maid service too expensive because $15 minimum wage.
I'm not sure what to believe anymore.
The reality is it's a developing country facing significant challenges, and no amount of trade liberalisation (or increased protectionism towards domestic manufacturing) is going to change that overnight. It's pretty hard to pin most of those challenges on the British destroying cottage weaving industries by dumping machine-made Manchester cotton on them in the early nineteenth century, or to argue that banning Apple Stores is a rational response likely to solve that problem.
On the one hand, there's stuff like this - https://twitter.com/pankaj/status/729417379730448384
Here you have SF entrepreneurs with vastly more capital & information than the average person in the US buying one way tickets to India.
Just last week, I had coffee with a YC founder who mentioned casually that "YC16 has dozens of startups out of Bangalore". He had conducted mock interviews for the accepted candidates & he was very excited for them & the Indian ecosystem. One or two companies is an outlier, but dozens ? That's a gamechanger.
At the same time you talk of "temple beggar jobs and 60 year old women doing road maintenance".
Am honestly unable to reconcile these opposing narratives.
India is a massive complex country, just like the US. It has plenty of physical and cultural space to accommodate both those narratives. You might consider visiting there to see both play out at the same time for yourself - it's fascinating.
But you don't need to look as far as SF to India to find such opposing narratives. SF entrepreneurs with vast amounts of capital are in close proximity to many people right in the Bay Area working for low wages in marginal and informal jobs (day laborers, child-care workers, domestic maids), and even people in jobs that involve human oppression (human trafficking, etc).
EDIT: comment added.
Sure if you have an American middle class salary/savings and go to India you'll live a very luxurious life (by Indian standards). You'll have AC in your house, servants to come and clean and cook for you. You can hire a driver for road trips. However your surrounding environment will be worse off than compared to the US (pollution, smog, corruption, inadequate infrastructure)
The servants however are still living in poverty or close to poverty. Go outside a major city to the countryside and its still very underdeveloped.
What does "loan under water" mean in this context? In a collateralized loan context (car or house), "under water" means that the borrower owes more than the market value of the collateral.
Rhetorically, you could consider them as being underwater if the asset purchased (human capital) isn't providing sufficient value (income) to service the loan.
Default of student loans in USA is around $1 trillion.
Isn't this what is called comparing Apples and Oranges.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/31/india-economic-...
Imagine if you had cargo truck borders and customs paperwork between every one of the US 50 states and what a nightmare it would be for trucking/logistics/distribution/warehousing/cold chain/etc.
Indian states have a significant degree of regulatory autonomy, far beyond what a US state or a Canadian province has, to the extend that some states are looking at banning alcohol entirely and others have unique tax code and criminal code laws not found in the rest of India.
I told them that all taxes were paid including VAT and Octroi for the computer when I bought it 5 years ago.
The said it doesn't matter, I must stop at the Octroi office and pay taxes again every time I am crossing a state border for everything I am carrying in my vehicle.
He said my only option is to pay them bribe, or they will impound my vehicle indefinitely.
The way to get around this is to look poor and be brown/black. Whenever I go back:
1) I buy a local school bag back ( put my expensive laptop and phone in it )
2) wear wife beater that is slight dirty.
3) do not shave.
4) speak only in Hindi.
5) wear only chapal ( bathroom style )
7) let your hair grow and do not comb.
Once you look poor enuf - no one will disturb you.
Since my job is programming - I really do not need to look presentable since people know who I am. But I do feel sorry for anyone who needs to wear a suit.
Unfortunately the only way you be be rich in public is if you have a bunch of body guards.
If you look and act rich & influential, then police and Government officials play nice with you.
Essentially what I am saying is that its not easy to sell 'Free Trade' in India.
I wasn't blaming anyone for anything - just staying the facts. I personally think it would help India to loosen up some of its protectionist laws and be a little bit more like China - but that is just my own opinion.
The West's legacy of (literally) militant mercantilism is the root cause of quite a lot of issues we are currently facing in the world.
The weapons have changed. The mindset remins the same.
s/pions/peons
s/gaurds/guards
Lots of previously poor countries have industrialized via exports.
One can argue they used protectionism at home---misguided as it is. But nevertheless their companies managed to sell to fickle foreigners in the foreigners' home markets---all sophistication issues aside.
These laws in India are a direct result of 200 years of British 'free' trade. Imagine the amount of damage something like NAFTA has done to the american working class - multiply that with 200 years.
While america was in its infancy - before it industrialized - it too used protectionism as a way to allow its local industries to grow, how is it bad if India is trying to do the same thing ?
The indian unemployment/underemployment problem will laugh at the face of the European/American moaning about jobs. Just to give you an interesting statistic - 85% of student loans in India is under water ( compared to 50% in america ).
There was this interesting story of engineers in India accepting jobs as pions ( gaurds/watchmen ) for a miserable 200 dollars salary a month. Could you imagine yourself in that position ? So I do not fault the govt for these laws or else there will be serious civilian unrest.
Indian markets, products and the economy in general is really bad and unsophisticated. There is no way they can compete with american, European and Chinese companies.
Of'course some bureaucrats within the Indian Govt uses this as a way to extract wealth from foreign companies who want to set up shop in India. But that is a corruption problem rather than an argument against the law. Even simple law in India is hard to enforce due to corruption, the reward greatly outweighs the risk.
Hopefully things will improve in India.