8 ms·

>so we arent being taken andvantage of For the last time...that's not how trade works! People who say this in this context mean well, but are committing the ex

>so we arent being taken andvantage of For the last time...that's not how trade works! People who say this in this context mean well, but are committing the exact same category error/misunderstanding of economics that Trump and his supporters are.

bawolff 27d ago
It is 100% how trade works. Free trade for both sides = good for both sides. Lopsided deals where one side gets the free flow of trade but the other side gets protectionism = exploitative. What is the category error here? Where is the misunderstanding? If you really believed what you wrote, why do you think trade deals exist in the first place? What function do you think they serve?
- neom 27d ago
  I'd guess that they're saying is, the point of trade, from a country's perspective, is to get imports. Exports are what you give up to obtain them (comparative advantage). So, when the US puts tariffs on Canadian goods, the main people who eat that cost are American consumers and firms buying those goods...basically, it's a tax Americans pay to Americans. Canada loses some export markets, however, the US isn't "extracting" anything...both sides just get less of a mutually beneficial thing.... So, In that faming, "one side gets free trade, the other gets protectionism" is in theory, a situation where the protectionist country is mostly shooting itself in the foot, not beating its partner. By the same theory, retaliating by taxing your own citizens purchases of American goods doesn't undo the damage... it adds to it. Also fwiw, a trade deal isn't a swap of comparative advantages, it's a bundling where each side concedes in sectors it can politically afford to lose in, inorder to win in sectors it cares more about. For example Canada protects dairy and gives ground on autos.
  - bawolff 27d ago
    > I'd guess that they're saying is, the point of trade, from a country's perspective, is to get imports. I'm not sure why you would think that. It is not what I said and not what i believe.
    - neom 26d ago
      I'm saying: that is what the person you responded to, savanaly, is using as the basis of their reply. I'm not saying that is what you said or believe.
- polski-g 27d ago
  Protectionism is harmful to both sides though, not just the one being "protected". If Thailand can more efficiently produce socks, and Canada can more efficiently produce lumber, it doesn't make sense to "protect" the Canadian sock industry. It just makes socks more expensive for Canadians. Let those Canadian sock workers go produce lumber instead.
- savanaly 27d ago
  >If you really believed what you wrote, why do you think trade deals exist in the first place? What function do you think they serve? In an ideal world, we would have free trade between nations and no trade deals. In the real world, for various reasons, we have trade barriers. But those who wish to see more trade can fight fire with fire by carving out exceptions to trade barriers in the form of trade deals and making trade more free in that way. It's all political horse trading, none of it creates new economic value that wouldn't be there in a free trade regime. But the important thing to note is that both imports and exports are good for your country; think of them both as technologies that convert between products at a favorable exchange rate. [0] Just because another country dampens the effectiveness of this technology in one way, why would you then respond by throwing out the technology altogether? [0] Think I was first exposed to this idea of thinking of trade as a technology in that way by https://tradef20.classes.ryansafner.com/readings/Krugman-1993.pdf https://tradef20.classes.ryansafner.com/readings/Krugman-199..., section II/
  - bawolff 26d ago
    > But the important thing to note is that both imports and exports are good for your country Of course. I think that goes without saying. >Just because another country dampens the effectiveness of this technology in one way Because the costs created don't apply equally to the parties. To put another way - peace is a technology that brings prosperity. If someone decides to shoot at you, why would you dampen this technology by shooting back? The global amount of prosperity will decline by responding in kind.

bawolff 27d ago

It is 100% how trade works. Free trade for both sides = good for both sides. Lopsided deals where one side gets the free flow of trade but the other side gets protectionism = exploitative. What is the category error here? Where is the misunderstanding? If you really believed what you wrote, why do you think trade deals exist in the first place? What function do you think they serve?

neom 27d ago
I'd guess that they're saying is, the point of trade, from a country's perspective, is to get imports. Exports are what you give up to obtain them (comparative advantage). So, when the US puts tariffs on Canadian goods, the main people who eat that cost are American consumers and firms buying those goods...basically, it's a tax Americans pay to Americans. Canada loses some export markets, however, the US isn't "extracting" anything...both sides just get less of a mutually beneficial thing.... So, In that faming, "one side gets free trade, the other gets protectionism" is in theory, a situation where the protectionist country is mostly shooting itself in the foot, not beating its partner. By the same theory, retaliating by taxing your own citizens purchases of American goods doesn't undo the damage... it adds to it. Also fwiw, a trade deal isn't a swap of comparative advantages, it's a bundling where each side concedes in sectors it can politically afford to lose in, inorder to win in sectors it cares more about. For example Canada protects dairy and gives ground on autos.
- bawolff 27d ago
  > I'd guess that they're saying is, the point of trade, from a country's perspective, is to get imports. I'm not sure why you would think that. It is not what I said and not what i believe.
  - neom 26d ago
    I'm saying: that is what the person you responded to, savanaly, is using as the basis of their reply. I'm not saying that is what you said or believe.
polski-g 27d ago
Protectionism is harmful to both sides though, not just the one being "protected". If Thailand can more efficiently produce socks, and Canada can more efficiently produce lumber, it doesn't make sense to "protect" the Canadian sock industry. It just makes socks more expensive for Canadians. Let those Canadian sock workers go produce lumber instead.
savanaly 27d ago
>If you really believed what you wrote, why do you think trade deals exist in the first place? What function do you think they serve? In an ideal world, we would have free trade between nations and no trade deals. In the real world, for various reasons, we have trade barriers. But those who wish to see more trade can fight fire with fire by carving out exceptions to trade barriers in the form of trade deals and making trade more free in that way. It's all political horse trading, none of it creates new economic value that wouldn't be there in a free trade regime. But the important thing to note is that both imports and exports are good for your country; think of them both as technologies that convert between products at a favorable exchange rate. [0] Just because another country dampens the effectiveness of this technology in one way, why would you then respond by throwing out the technology altogether? [0] Think I was first exposed to this idea of thinking of trade as a technology in that way by https://tradef20.classes.ryansafner.com/readings/Krugman-1993.pdf https://tradef20.classes.ryansafner.com/readings/Krugman-199..., section II/
- bawolff 26d ago
  > But the important thing to note is that both imports and exports are good for your country Of course. I think that goes without saying. >Just because another country dampens the effectiveness of this technology in one way Because the costs created don't apply equally to the parties. To put another way - peace is a technology that brings prosperity. If someone decides to shoot at you, why would you dampen this technology by shooting back? The global amount of prosperity will decline by responding in kind.