Re:Jack Ma: 'If trade stops, war starts'
by snrplfth on Monday February 06, 2017 @03:02PM
(#13583311)
I've read it, and it seems to be the same kind of mercantilist thinking that I'm criticizing. It's more of this "take an accounting identity, ignore the effects of one-half of it, bemoan the 'imbalance' of the other half."
I mean, you could solve the US 'trade imbalance' by making it extremely hard for foreigners to invest capital in the US. But of course this would have knock-on effects that make it harder for companies and workers in the US to access investment capital. Or you could shut out foreign goods - and ignore the costs of more expensive domestic goods for US consumers. None of this actually benefits people.
I see nothing in this article to distinguish it from the historically-always-wrong mercantilism that just kept drawing boundaries around areas and then yelled and shouted whenever more of one particular class of good went in than came out.
I mean, you could solve the US 'trade imbalance' by making it extremely hard for foreigners to invest capital in the US. But of course this would have knock-on effects that make it harder for companies and workers in the US to access investment capital. Or you could shut out foreign goods - and ignore the costs of more expensive domestic goods for US consumers. None of this actually benefits people.
I see nothing in this article to distinguish it from the historically-always-wrong mercantilism that just kept drawing boundaries around areas and then yelled and shouted whenever more of one particular class of good went in than came out.