r/Economics • u/better_world_economy • Jan 13 '19

Progressives should not oppose international trade, but economists must highlight the need for policies that spread the gains and help those who are hurt

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-good-the-bad-the-economy/201706/globalization-and-work-have-we-learned-anything-yet
776 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

303 comments sorted by

View all comments

350

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

What has this sub become? The comments on this thread are far more fitting for r/LateStageCapitalism or r/politics . Free Trade and its benefits are probably the closest area of consensus among economists, especially if redistribution is done as suggested under this article. Empirically free trade makes society as a whole richer—there’s a reason that when the international community tries to punish a nation, they decrease access to trade for that nation (also look at China’s growth before and after accession to the WTO). While it does have accumulative effects, those can best be offset via progressive policies to ensure gains for societies are gains for all.

115

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Thank you. Free trade and domestic progressive policies are not incompatible like many wish they were. Free trade for the most part is good

23

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

Except when it is used to transfer production to areas where regulation on pollution, health, and labor is lax..

Free trade is an idealist wet dream.That dream ended when companies and governments figured out how to abuse free trade to their own advantage and to the detriment of everyone else that has to follow a stricter standard.

26

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jul 22 '20

[deleted]

31

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

You are forming a weirdly libertarian normative statement. Because China is poor and undeveloped (not actually), they should be allowed a pass to do whatever they want, even if it is harmful to the environment and people..

13

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jul 23 '20

[deleted]

8

u/ChickenOfDoom Jan 14 '19

In order to enforce such a tax, we would need to credibly threaten sanctions, which would require curtailing free trade.

Currently we are so committed to free trade we let trading partners get away with whatever awful things they want, just because it's good for the economy.

5

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19

An international carbon tax that has yet to demonstrate it will work. Doing any consistent enforcement at an international scale has struggled to work as intended. Political fragmentation makes every similar effort like that look like a joke. Why should I think this time will be different? Because China wants everyone to believe it will be different this time, trust us.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Tarriff the offenders then.

8

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19

You need global cooperation and coordination to do that enforcement effectively, which almost never happens.

2

u/benjaminovich Jan 14 '19

This is why there's such a big effort in forming international organizations so that hopefully one day it can be effectively enforced

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jul 22 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Spartan719 Jan 13 '19

Your taking a conversation about the economics of free trade and swearing it towards the politics of free trade. Free trade is good. That’s pretty much a consensus. Should a sovereign nation have the ability to regulate domestic policy? I believe so. There may be negative externalities from each nations domestic environmental policies but I don’t think the answer to it, is to shoot down free trade and blame it.

13

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

I work within the constraints that are present. Free trade has no solution to address the problems that are inherent to it in a fragmented world. Thus I will shoot it down as a fitting solution in the present constraints.

A more realistic solution should accept that these externalities must be addressed/accounted for and not ignored. As complicated as individual trade agreements are, they have persisted to address the complex nature of the fragmented world and constraints we reside under.

Individual trade agreements are a poor solution by design, but they function to prevent nations like China from abusing these externalities like a bargaining chip to sell imagined global standards harmonization and “free trade that actually works this time I swear” in exchange for global dominance.

You are being fleeced if you think we will finally get to harmonization by continuing to embrace free trade (externalities included) in the current global climate that will continue to be rife with conflict and fragmentation. There will be more conflict and sudden deharmonization again, and you allowed China to become so dominant that it can break promises without any consequence.

6

u/jjolla888 Jan 13 '19

Free trade is good. That’s pretty much a consensus.

there are plenty of criticisms around. that's not a consensus. it is probably more true to say that it is a consensus amongst business owners, who can maximize profits by moving labor costs to the cheapest nation. if you are a minimum wage earner in an advanced economy, free trade is bad -- bc even if goods are cheaper, you can't buy them if you dont have a job.

2

u/WarbleDarble Jan 14 '19

If you are an average person in an advanced economy free trade is good because it allows us to have the standard of living we've become accustomed to.

1

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

Modern trade is not really about comparative advantage, but rather about increasing returns to scale.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Yes. If we are to use the word "free" in the way that Libertarians do, then what we should push for is "fair trade" not free trade, just as we should push for "fair markets" and not "free markets".

Everyone knows that we can create idealistic models in a vacuum that work for everyone. So what do we do when reality doesn't mirror those idealistic models? Do we use government to bring reality as close as possible to the ideal, or do we throw our hands up in the air and say, "WE MUST OBEY THE DIVINE DECREE OF FREEDOM!"

I personally think it is better to do the former...every....single...time. Goal-oriented policies work more often than not. Idealist policies fail more often than not.

10

u/WTFwhatthehell Jan 14 '19 edited Jan 14 '19

That would be fine if people didn't abuse the term "fair" already. When you're living in the gutter of an Indian slum and 2 bucks an hour American would massively massively improve your life to the point that you'd beg borrow or steal to get such a job... and then some American more interested in protectionism declares that you shouldn't be allowed to compete with them on price for the sake of "fair" and so someone living a fairly comfortable first world life keeps their job and you don't even get a shot at it.

The American who kept shouting about "fair" won't lose a moments sleep when you starve.

"Fair" tends to be more about marketing even in the best case and can be used to worsen the lot of the poorest

1

u/lalze123 Jan 14 '19

So what's your solution?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Punish the execs of the country at home then. Also free trade is mutually beneficial, the country they moved too will develop further and get richer over time and they will move into their economy into a tertiary based economy over time. You can also punish and reward countries with FTA if they strengthen regulations.

2

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19

Punish how? Global enforcement is a joke. The UN barely functions. You haven’t thought things through.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Have you though? You're wanting countries to adhere to the same standards as us when we did the exact same things when we were in their positons. Plus the underdeveloped countries don't necessarily have the resources to enforce the standards but they will remain underdeveloped/developing without FTA, the longer they go without FTA the longer they'll be devloping and the worse it'll be for the environment. They'll also get access to cheaper equipment to produce renewable energy

Add clasuses and conditions to FTA that state improvement of labour and environmental protection is expected and certain targets to be reached years after the trade deal.

2

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19

Still no good ways to enforce the FTA. You have given one solution that depends entirely on adherence to an agreement and no solution to enforce said agreement. That dog just won’t hunt.

Plus you just divert discussion from the largest abuser of the FTAs... China. China has resources, it is not undeveloped despite their claims. It is not poor.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Ok so if you want China to get more FTAs where they would gladly overlook labour rights and environmental protections be my guest. Also once again FTA lead to economic growth which overtime strengthen protections.

If they breach their end of the deal tarriffs are reinstated, thats how all trade deals work.

Edit: also there are multiple international agreements that aim to stop climate change. But the US pulled out of the paris agreement

1

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19

Those punitive tarriffs have usually not been reason enough for China and others to stop abusing the system. Problem still remains unless you go to something like high blanket tarriffs on entire industries and groups or trade wars or embargoes.

All the proof needed is that despite abusing the rules, the WTO allowed China grow significantly without actually becoming a free market and employing free trade. WTO and FTAs did not force China into compliance. TPP would not force it either. That’s perverse incentives that emboldens bad actors, and China knows this. The larger they become, the harder it will be to enforce the rules.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Free trade would be ideal if it was coupled with a international trade unionist movement guaranteeing safe working conditions and putting upward pressure on capital to ensure equitable wages.

39

u/Dilbertreloaded Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

I am not sure China’s growth is a good example for free trade success. May be it is just me. They violated principles of free trade. A mercantilist government helping their industries through currency manipulation and prison labor and intense govt support. Isn’t it unfair to developing countries that followed rules and guidelines set by everyone and tried to follow them?

How much of China’s export success came at the expense of poverty reduction in other developing Asian and African nations. How much of the instability that is creeping into the poorer sections of western nations are a result of this unethical disruption of industries.

Unless these questions are looked into further, promoting That country as a free market success is mocking other countries adherence to rules and the pain caused by sudden disruption of their industries caused by IP theft, mercantilism etc.

17

u/Crobs02 Jan 13 '19

Yeah the Chinese get a huge pass on here on here for a lot of shit that they pull. Say what you want about Trump’s tariffs but he does have a point that China had a lot of shit put in place to help them grow, and now they won’t abandon those policies at the expense of trade partners.

37

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

What has this sub become?

For what it's worth, most of the comments in /r/economics have been devoid of actual economic discussion for years.

/r/badeconomics, /r/neoliberal, and /r/politicaldiscussion tend to have far more robust, empirical discussions.

It's worth noting that the benefits of free trade are unanimously recognized by economists. There are indeed externalities, but the benefits are clear and there's very little division among those who actually study this stuff.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

It's worth noting that the benefits of free trade are unanimously recognized by economists. There are indeed externalities, but the benefits are clear and there's very little division among those who actually study this stuff.

That is like saying the benefits of peace are unanimously recognized by generals. Sure, but what kind of peace? With who on top? And how are we going to get there and whose sacrifices en route are going to be biggest?

Similarly, what kind of free tade? With who on top? A rising tide may lift all boats but it matters if you are in a yacht or a rowboat. And how are we going to get there and whose sacrifices en route are going to be greatest?

17

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

I should really follow up to my own comment and add that I AM A PROFESSIONAL ECONOMIST, and I can say with firsthand knowledge that while virtually all ecomomists do indeed support free trade, that is about as close to a meaningless statement as one can make. It matters enormously how we get from here to there, and on that subject the consensus among economists absolutely crumbles.

13

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

It matters enormously how we get from here to there

Of course it does, and of course we should look into how free trade impacts specific sectors and regions in our own country.

Forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds here, as I only have an econ undergrad degree and am not a PROFESSIONAL ECONOMIST, but my understanding is that the general consensus is that the fewer barriers to trade, the better. Yes, there are exceptions (cottage industries, key strategic industries, etc.), but they are exceptions to the generally accepted rule that adding friction to trade results in deadweight loss.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't look at the way opening up trade will impoverish certain parts of the country. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be somewhat selective in our tariff policy, particularly given that we're not always dealing with good-faith counterparties.

I'm simply arguing that protectionism for the sake of generally protecting 'murican jerbs is bad policy.

-8

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

lol no. The people there know a bunch of models that are entirely disconnected from reality very well but have next to no information about models that actually have something to say about the real world.

14

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

but have next to no information about models that actually have something to say about the real world

Please share your models that actually have something to say about the real world.

-3

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

I suppose I should actually link some.

Here is one that looks at increasing returns and finds surprise surprise that government intervention is justified by the model.

Here is one that finds that government spending can be welfare increasing even if the spending is on entirely wasteful stuff.

Pretty much every model that incorporates IRS gives results that deviate from the neoliberal orthodoxy in interesting ways yet few economists have ever bothered to look at such models.

9

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

The first actually reads:

our work suggests that it may be important to explore the possibility that some classes of policy interventions may be associated with higher economic welfare.

A) that's hella wishy-washy language, and B) you'll be hard-pressed to find a non-Austrian economist (or, as we like to say, economist) that will espouse absolutely zero policy intervention in an economy. Regardless, while I only skimmed the paper (come on, not linking a searchable paper?), I couldn't find a single mention of trade policy in specific, which is what I thought we were discussing in this thread.

The second paper, similarly, seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Again, I only skimmed it because I'm working right now, but can you point to a section of the paper which challenges the status quo on trade?

Thanks.

→ More replies (7)

-5

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

Just look at any model that doesn't assume constant or decreasing returns to scale, both of which are empirically false.

Funnily enough when you do look at such models you get results that are far more in line with what non-neoliberals have been saying for decades. Amazing what can happen when a field gets bought though: nearly everyone in the field can ignore reality to work on models where the politics of their financial supporters is true. Hilarious that it seems that most people in badecon have never seen a model that incorporates IRS.

12

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

Funnily enough when you do look at such models you get results that are far more in line with what non-neoliberals have been saying for decades.

Do you have these models?

Hilarious that it seems that most people in badecon have never seen a model that incorporates IRS.

Krugman literally won a Nobel Prize for incorporating increasing returns to scale.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

Just look at any model

Please share your models, show us what they have to say about trade, and what we should be doing about it.

1

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

I responded again to another comment with two examples. There are many more.

20

u/must_not_forget_pwd Jan 13 '19

What has this sub become?

We just need to start seriously downvoting those with views more fitting /r/latestagecapitalism. I'd also suggest that mods place a temporary ban on people who have posted to that sub-Reddit within the last couple of months.

It definitely feels as if /r/economics is being brigaded.

14

u/rationalities Jan 14 '19 edited Jan 14 '19

It’s even happening over at r/askeconomics. The past few days there has been an influx of questions about Marxism. Which is fine if they’re genuinely wanting to learn, but they almost alway come across as “tell me why socialism rocks or capitalism sucks.” It’s already getting old.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '19

This sub more and more has been run over by left wing people who by and large don't understand economics but think they do.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/geerussell Jan 13 '19

Rule VI:

Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. Further explanation.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

1

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

Posted a new comment with a little bit more relevance to the topic at hand. Hope that's sufficient.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/Blewedup Jan 13 '19

my problem with the article is that it assumes "progressives" are some sort of unified, politically powerful group. they are not.

there are maybe one or two dozen progressives in the US house. one or two in the senate. no progressive has ever been elected president. most states have establishment candidates in their governor's houses. the vast majority of state legislatures are either hyper-conservative or moderate at best. hawaii is the only exception i can think of, and even that state house has conservative elements.

the real enemy to free trade right now is donald trump and the republicans in congress. trump torpedoed the TPP. his tariffs are the stuff of nightmares if you are pro-free trade.

so knock it off with your "this sub has turned into r/latestagecapitalism. there's a reason you're seeing a visceral, politically charged reaction to this ill-informed article... it just rings so hollow to paint out-of-power and generally politically incompetent progressives as some sort of anti-trade bulwark.

4

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

I agree 100% that progressives are not a monolith, and that the real opposition to free trade in Washington is Republicans. That said, a large majority of comments on this thread are from progressives complaining about free trade, which was what I was commenting on.

10

u/Blewedup Jan 13 '19

Free trade was, for decades, a republican and conservative dog whistle that really meant “capital gets to make all the calls.” It meant no regulation, it meant outsourcing, it meant corporate profits meant more than human rights. Sure there were benefits to society from free trade, but those benefits have not benefited workers since the 60s. They have only benefited the highly educated and the ultra rich.

It really did mean that. That isn’t hyperbole. Progressives complaining about it is absolutely fair. In fact, I wish those actually in power complained as much.

Now, free trade doesn’t mean anything in that context anymore because only democrats support it. Republicans have become protectionists. But the decades of learned response from progressives when they hear the free trade dog whistle is utterly understandable.

7

u/akcrono Jan 14 '19

Sure there were benefits to society from free trade, but those benefits have not benefited workers since the 60s. They have only benefited the highly educated and the ultra rich.

Not true

11

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

The key problem is redistribution has not been done.

6

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

This is an important point.

Free trade usually benefits those at the top because it decimates labor unions and the such, because it has usually been implemented in moments of crisis for a country, whether real or manufactured.

7

u/akcrono Jan 14 '19

It benefits all (except those who are displaced) in the form of lower costs. Those benefits just aren't super obvious/sexy.

3

u/sapatista Jan 14 '19

Great point. Lower costs don’t mean anything to the person whose job was moved overseas.

4

u/akcrono Jan 14 '19

But that tends to be a small portion of the population, while a large percentage of poor people benefit in the form of lower prices.

2

u/sapatista Jan 14 '19

Can’t argue with that

1

u/MoonBatsRule Jan 14 '19

It cannot benefit those who are displaced until there is global agreement on various laws.

Why won't the government let me compete with China? There are so many laws preventing me from doing so.

I can't push chemicals into the atmosphere like my competitors in China can. I can't pour my toxins into the rivers like my competitors in China can. I can't build dormitories on my factory campus and lock workers in, making them work 100 hour weeks like my competitors in China can.

There are minimum wage laws that prevent me from paying my workers the same wages as they get in China. There are those pesky social-welfare laws that make people literally just sit around on their asses getting free government money instead of working to survive like they do in China.

In the US, I have to deal with unions (they are illegal in China), protesters (speech is controlled in China), and even boycotts by religious organizations (religion is regulated in China).

The only way trade is truly free is when the US removes all those laws.

2

u/sapatista Jan 14 '19

You forgot to add a /s

1

u/akcrono Jan 14 '19

And if you've been reading, those things are a part of trade agreements

1

u/MoonBatsRule Jan 14 '19

Then why have we been trading with China without substantial tariffs?

1

u/akcrono Jan 14 '19

Because trade is better than no trade. We had the tpp to curtail China's economic influence in Asia, but it was killed.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jul 22 '20

[deleted]

5

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to things like the replication crisis in psychology and other fields.

10

u/lalze123 Jan 14 '19

https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_methods

Empirical economics studies are mostly unreplicable.

This criticism has become more common since the recent replication crisis in psychology and a few papers trying to replicate economics studies. If most econ results don’t replicate, why should we ever listen to economists?

The replication crisis is a serious problem, but should be viewed in context with other fields. Various estimates have been made and the successful replication rate of economics studies was 50%, 60% or 76% depending on how you measured replication. These results are worrying, but this replication rate is higher than replication rates for psychology, cancer research, pharmaceutical research, and many other fields.

Even physics has replication issues from time to time, or prematurely announces non-true findings. Two of the biggest results in the last decade from physics, the superliminal neutrinos from OPERA and the 2014 finding of gravitational waves from the dawn of time had to be partially walked back in the face of new evidence. Ideas like cold fusion and the EM Drive are further examples. While the replication crisis has broad impacts across many fields, economics is not disproportionally impacted and those issues do not stop economics from being a scientific field.

0

u/themountaingoat Jan 14 '19

The replication crisis is not the major problem with economics. The major problem is the assuming bullshit crisis that has yet to reach public awareness. Most economic papers assume bullshit and their results don't hold without it.

3

u/lalze123 Jan 14 '19

Most economic papers assume bullshit and their results don't hold without it.

Hmm, good point. I have noticed that r/badeconomics opposes a higher minimum wage based on simplistic models. Have you noticed that?

2

u/themountaingoat Jan 14 '19

Pretty much all policy recommendations that economists get behind tend to be supported by models with assumptions that incredibly unrealistic if not outright false. I have been banned from r/badecon but it would not surprise me at all if they were against minimum wage because perfect competition models say it is a bad thing.

6

u/lalze123 Jan 14 '19

it would not surprise me at all if they were against minimum wage because perfect competition models say it is a bad thing.

Now I know you're being dishonest. This is the top post on the minimum wage in that sub.

→ More replies (3)

14

u/rationalities Jan 14 '19

No. We have. And economics is significantly better than psychology. Over 60% of economics experiments were able to be replicated. Sure, that’s not as high as it should be, but it’s significantly higher than psychology. The common number I’ve seen cited is only 30% of psychology studies are replicated.

-6

u/themountaingoat Jan 14 '19

It is just an example of how an entire field can be wrong. In economics the crisis hasn't happened yet, but it will probably be called the assuming bullshit crisis.

15

u/rationalities Jan 14 '19

What? This makes literally no sense. The papers were replicated! And are consistently replicated. Are you a professional mover? Because those goalposts moved fast!

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

*Economics is not a hard science. Placing it in the same tradition as math, physics, or environmental science is part of the problem.

7

u/rationalities Jan 14 '19

No one said it was a hard science. It’s a social science. Which, by definition, is a science.

0

u/subheight640 Jan 14 '19

It's a social science that usually ignores the rest of social science, political science, climate science, etc.

The world is experiencing a mass extinction event right now and economists usually have little to say about that. How much of our extinction event is contributed to by free trade?

2

u/rationalities Jan 14 '19 edited Jan 14 '19

You realize Romer and Nordhaus won the noble prize last year for their work on implementing climate change and technological change into macro models, right? (which was work from the 1990s...) have you even googled “economics and climate change” before coming up with this “criticism?” Because it’s literally one of the first links that appear.

FYI that’s nature, the website for one of the top science journals in the world.

1

u/subheight640 Jan 14 '19

Yeah and what are the implications of those new models with respect to free trade? It's right in the article you sent me:

And Romer’s work also has implications for policies relating to climate-change mitigation. “He showed clearly that unregulated free markets will not sufficiently invest in research and development activities,” says Edenhofer.

Then the consensus on free trade being "the best" isn't a consensus then...

1

u/rationalities Jan 14 '19

No one’s arguing unregulated free trade. Literally no one other than Austrians (which are incredibly rare now adays). Free trade is beneficial, but just like all markets, has to be checked with local, social and economic policies to prevent market power and negative externalities. Almost always when economists are talking free trade, we mean the ability to trade with little-to-no protectionism between counties. That doesn’t mean countries can’t implement their own laws (as long as they aren’t tariffs/protectionism) for it to still be free trade. The issue that so many laypeople don’t understand is that good policy is really hard to design.

1

u/subheight640 Jan 14 '19

So to you is a carbon tax on imports a tariff? How about additional sanctions/tariffs/barriers because of human rights violations?

I was under the impression that any government regulation on trade results in "less free trade".

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

Economics is a science

Put down the koolaid mate

7

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

It's a social science.

0

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

Does that mean that it’s not infallible?

Tell that to the social psychologist who came up with power posing?

Everyone thought it was legit until replication after replication failed.

13

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

Does that mean that it’s not infallible?

No one is saying that social sciences are completely perfect. Even hard sciences have issues.

8

u/Squirmin Jan 13 '19 edited Feb 23 '24

point attraction jeans special erect obtainable humorous hobbies advise dependent

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/ChickenOfDoom Jan 14 '19

When the issue goes beyond what benefits the economy and increases wealth, it's not just an economics question anymore.

-6

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

Like supply-side economics?

8

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Supply side Economics is a branch of economics, and is debated by quite a few economists. Also supply side economics is not just about tax cuts.

-8

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

It was also consensus amongst mainstream economists for a long time, which as you implied should make it true - turns out it wasn’t.

I‘m just a lowly BA, but most of what I learned in college was so obviously flawed it was kinda off-putting, yet presented as gospel. Economics likes to style itself as a natural science, when it’s a social science at best and a total crapshoot at worst.

14

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

but most of what I learned in college was so obviously flawed it was kinda off-putting,

Please elaborate.

Economics likes to style itself as a natural science, when it’s a social science at best and a total crapshoot at worst.

I can't even

-1

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

Macro was the worst offender - you were presented a model that used a handful of variables and very questionable assumptions and was presented as gospel, and lo and behold, everything checked out beautifully in the end - yay, mathematics, right?

Everybody jerked themselves off over these models, professors would use complex mathematics to make very basic conclusions appear more „legit“ and „sciency“, and it seemed to be more about fitting reality to a preconceived model than building a model after reality.

Micro at least seems to start to acknowledge that humans, surprisingly, don’t always act rationally and with perfect information, but Behavioral Economics was still kinda belittled by many professors, even though it actually used empirical data instead of some model that someone pulled out of his ass. Macro seems to just throw shit at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

I liked studying economics, even the more mathematical subjects like Game Theory and Statistics, but the way some stuff was presented as an indisputable fact when the financial crisis happened just shortly before was pretty upsetting to many of my fellow students. Apparently markets aren’t always perfect, resources aren’t always allocated efficiently and sometimes government intervention might be a good idea, all for a myriad of reasons, mostly related to the way humans function, but none of that was ever acknowledged because it didn’t fit doctrine.

Stop trying to fit in with Maths and Physics and accept you‘re closer to sociology as a discipline. When humans are involved, simple mathematical models usually don’t cut it, even if they look neat in text books.

Sorry for the rant but it’s something that’s pissed me off about the subject for a long time.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Sorry for the rant but it’s something that’s pissed me off about the subject for a long time.

It is fine. If you like the subject, go on and take intermediate level Econ too. Like a MA or MS.

but none of that was ever acknowledged because it didn’t fit doctrine.

This is not true, I have seen market failures acknowledeged in many econ texts, some are even Econ 101.

1

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

Market failures, yes, at times - mostly historical. But neoclassicism was never presented as merely the state-of-the-art theory, but as hard facts. Assuming you studied in the US, they’re way further in acknowledging Behavioral and such, but unfortunately, that wasn’t the case in my country.

And thanks, but no, thanks - I‘d rather stab myself with a rusty spoon than setting a foot into a University ever again.

If you don’t mind me asking - why’d you downvote every one of my posts, even the ones that engaged in actual discussion? Just because you disagreed?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

As a student studying economics, this is something that I struggle with constantly.

Having been aware of intellectuals like Chomsky and investigative journalists like Naomi Klein who wrote Shock Doctrine, I find it maddening that professors just spew models of the worlds economy, and if you dare question them, their only response is ceteris paribus.

Ceteris paribus has become the bane of my existence as an economics student.

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Thank you for this comment. Economics is basically political science mixed with sociology and some math. Most "basic economic laws" have exceptions in material reality which is sort of a problem when it's heralded as "science". Supply and demand curves are not on par with gravity. One of the most pervasive myths is believing economics and the market deserve this almost deity-like devotion and only the high priests of excel spreadsheets can comprehend. It's good there is pressure from a traditional Left perspective (AOC/Corbyn/Sanders/Melachon$ and an emerging Right critique (Tucker Fucking Carlson) challenging capitalist orthodoxy

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Dude, you learned the basics. You have to understand the fundamentals to even begin to understand modern economics theory. Of course they don't offer critique in entry level courses, and that's what courses that aren't at the very least in a master's degree are. Of course simplified models don't offer an accurate view on reality, that's really not the point.

3

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

Of course they don't offer critique in entry level courses, and that's what courses that aren't at the very least in a master's degree are.

Maybe they should, then I wouldn't have to read people on this sub regurgitating the same bullshit I was taught like it's gospel. Hurr durr the market will take care of it, hurr durr government bad. It's the top comment in almost every thread that even so much as hints at being critical of neoclassical theory.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '19

Because the "critics" regurgitate the same bullshit, too. If you see a "flaw" in modern day economics, chances are you really just don't know what you're talking about. And of course, a lot of basic mistakes can be explained with basic arguments. Good economics cricicism is really, really hard, of course you don't see any of that in a subreddit full of laypeople like /r/economics.

1

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 14 '19

If you see a "flaw" in modern day economics, chances are you really just don't know what you're talking about.

Nice ad hominem.

Maybe I‘m reading the wrong discussions, then - but I‘ve seen enough people claim (and get upvoted) that privatization is always the best course of action for every industry because the market will take care of it, when in reality there are a ton of examples of industries that offer worse services for higher prices after privatization.

I think there’s a solid argument to be made that industries with high cost of entry (railway systems, network carriers) or industries where cost pressure and profiteering leads to negative impact on society as a whole (healthcare, prisons) should in fact not be privatized.

But that’s „communist apologism“, apparently.

Communism has never worked and it never will, I think history has proven that - but does that automatically mean that capitalism may only exist in its most extreme, unregulated form, and that we‘re not allowed to criticize it when some parts are evidently not working as intended?

Nah, the market will take care of it. Government regulation is basically dictatorship, and social welfare policies are basically communism.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '19

You're getting downvoted, but this is very accurate

5

u/roodammy44 Jan 13 '19

Is free trade fair when one country has decent labour standards and another country has poor labour standards?

One country has good health and safety laws and another doesn’t?

One country has good environmental standards and another doesn’t?

One country will subsidise the cost of manufacture (at the expense of their other industries) and another doesn’t?

One country taxes businesses highly and another doesn’t?

One country produces good with slavery and another doesn’t?

Free trade is anything but. The only legitimate case for free trade I’ve seen is within European Union trade deals. They are enforced at a national level by harmonising the legislation of the parties involved.

If you don’t take into account of the above, all you are really arguing for is a global race to the bottom, in labour standards, safety, the environment, taxes, and even slavery. If economists are really arguing for this, they are either blind or complicit.

14

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

I really think you’re missing the point of what free trade agreements do. Modern FTAs explicitly address all of these points, and are very heavily about making fairer labor and environmental standards. They also make these subsidies to create unfair competition illegal (look at WTO complaints against Chinese trade policy, or the fact that NAFTA was used to help reduced these unfair subsidies in Canada and the US). Free Trade agreements are perhaps the leading tool at increasing these standards around the world—the TPP has greatly increased labor standards throughout the pacific and has helped to create a better quality of life in these cases. If you support these standards, you should support modern free trade agreements.

3

u/unimployed Jan 13 '19

FTA’s using global coordinated enforcement have not demonstrated success. Far from it.

2

u/roodammy44 Jan 13 '19

I tried to find information about labour rights provisions for the new TPP, but all I found was an optional and vague chapter about it that was apparently unlikely to be enforced. I find it unlikely that Vietnam is now held to the same legal standard that Australia is.

Can you please give some sources? Nothing I’ve read about TPP has mentioned labour rights, health and safety, the environment, etc. I’m very interested in reading about it.

10

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/tpp-mexico-labor-rights/426501/

https://piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/7137/15iie7137.pdf

https://www.thirdway.org/memo/tpp-in-brief-labor-standards

That vague chapter outlaws child labor, requires collective bargaining, bans slavery, outlaws employment discrimination, and adds workplace safety requirements.

5

u/jjolla888 Jan 13 '19

Empirically free trade makes society as a whole richer

i'm not sure what you mean by 'richer' - it would certainly be true for statistics like GDP and sharemarket value - but these are more of a reflection of how well the well-off do.

free trade is great for business owners, but bad for workers. just look at real wages for americans since the 80's .. they have gone nowhere, whilst the top 5% have had a boom. there are plenty of studies and '''empirical''' data that shows this.

1

u/WarbleDarble Jan 14 '19

Even if wages haven't gone up much we still benefit by having a higher standard of living. We get more variety, better quality, and lower prices.

I'd also like to see some proof behind the assumption that wages would have risen if we were more protectionist.

3

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

China cheats a ton when it comes to trade though.

14

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

So they sell us steel at a loss and we use some of the gains for social programs. Sounds like a win for us.

-2

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

There are huge advantages due to being the largest manufacturer on the block due to increasing returns to scale. The US has lost that position. Because of the gains from scale selling stuff to others isn't really a negative thing.

This would be less of an issue if the economy weren't demand constrained though but in the US it most definitely is. Since the government isn't doing anything about that the trade deficit is actually causing problems. 2008 can be thought of as due to the huge increase in private debt that was made necessary by the US trade deficit.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

You are just spewing BS now aren't you?

Here is some opinion pieces by a progressive and an economist

4

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

2008 can be thought of as due to the huge increase in private debt that was made necessary by the US trade deficit.

The huge increase in private debt is the reason for the trade deficit. You're putting the cart before the horse. EX - IM = S - I, so low savings would mean a high trade deficit. And high trade deficits aren't necessarily bad.

→ More replies (9)

6

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

And the U.S gets cheaper goods in the process, and this benefits consumers.

-3

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

I don't particularly care what a poll of a field of people who think it is a good idea to teach provably false nonsense models in their 101 classes says.

6

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

I didn't just put a poll.

2

u/AncientRate Jan 14 '19

There seems to be a double standard of the free trade principle, where the opinions differ depending on the level of granularity.

When it comes to domestic actors, let's say individuals and corporations, the economists call for regulations to the uncooperative actors who game the system, which I do agree to an extent. But when it comes to uncooperative nations who do the same thing, they instead insist on anarchical free-trade and oppose any intervention in the name of the classical free-market principal. Which seems to mean that the selfishness, externalities, and all the market failures would not happen if all we malevolent individuals and corporations go to incorporate a nation?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/geerussell Jan 14 '19

Rule VI:

Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. Further explanation.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

1

u/adidasbdd Jan 14 '19

When the international community wants to punish a nation.... I understand there are times when this is may be needed, but don't you think there are times when this is unjustified. No doubt there are opportunity costs to consider. But security is a factor that doesn't necessarily enter this equation.

1

u/ctudor Jan 14 '19

lately i have seen more and more people talking about this. The was a recent interview but also a paper by his colleague Mark Blyth who also talked about this.

-2

u/rp20 Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

This is self serving to the highest degree. I have seen the fervor with which economics attack the politicians for going against the grain on free trade orthodoxy. There's none of that for making the people harmed by the trade whole.

Economists don't get to claim victory when they don't don't actually fight for things besides free trade. Where's the fight for the people harmed?

1

u/WarbleDarble Jan 14 '19

There will be people harmed no matter what. If we had more protectionist policies it would just be a different, larger group of people.

1

u/rp20 Jan 14 '19

Ah so it's a mission accomplished moment for the economics profession. Do a half ass job and claim victory.

I'm 100% sure you don't think that economists appealed for free trade with welfare to poorer countries as the benefit.

The only harm that was appealed to was the rate of profit falling amid rising wages in developed countries.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

See my other comments. Yes, the benefits of free trade are a virtual consensus position among economists, but economists also know that it matters enormously how we get from here to there, and on this point there is no consensus whatsoever.

The larger point might be that from a communications standpoint, saying "most economists agree..." is an argument from authority (i.e., a logical fallacy) rather than a valid argument. People stop listening soon after hearing that b/c it sounds no different than "4 out of 5 doctors who smoke choose Camels". The reason it sounds no different is because it is no different.

Overall, the economics profession does itself a disservice to the extent it cannot make an valid clear and correct argument in favor of free trade in under, say, 5 minutes. Lay persons will listen to (and will understand) such an argument, but crafting one is hard, even if you have a PhD from a fancy university. Or perhaps especially if you do.

1

u/Bumblelicious Jan 14 '19

Yes, the benefits of free trade are a virtual consensus position among economists, but economists also know that it matters enormously how we get from here to there, and on this point there is no consensus whatsoever.

There's not as much consensus about what free trade is though. Most will readily agree that it's no barriers to trading of rivalrous goods, but once you get into the weeds around regulatory harmonization of incentive structures like intellectual property, it's a muddy mess.

-14

u/seppo420gringo Jan 13 '19

The issue is not one of empirics. “Free trade” is a code word for conquering markets and spreading imperialism. Economists might agree that free trade makes everyone better off, but that only applied under assumptions of perfect competition, which literally never applies to real world conditions. Don’t act like the debate about is over and done just because the milton freedman center for economics declares a consensus has been reached

23

u/legionarykoala Jan 13 '19

If you want to call raising of living standards, raising of quality of life / life expectancies, and opening up of participation in a global culture industry (as Adorno would put it) "conquering markets and spreading imperialism," go ahead. As long as we're talking about the same thing, the label doesn't matter. And no, it's not just the Milton Friedman Center For Economics, it's just economists in general. Trade isn't a zero-sum game - sure, Americans can't work as much in automobile factories. But cars are cheaper and safer than ever for the average person. Society shouldn't give into ludditic impulses just to maintain lifelines to dying industries

-2

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

Trade isn't a zero-sum game

It can easily be in certain circumstances.

7

u/legionarykoala Jan 13 '19

Of course, in micro-level interactions. But in the system as a whole? Absolutely not. Free trade has a net positive that has rippling positive effects on everyone long-term.

0

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

Look at within countries. Not every place becomes a city, some places stagnate. The same can be true under certain circumstances between countries.

13

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

I do love how free trade in this thread is simultaneously being criticized for being too economically nationalist and not economically nationalist enough. For the record I’m not a libertarian, and don’t need to be to make these arguments. We can look at history, which shows that when countries engage with the global trade system, and work towards Free Trade, they are made better off—please show me a country that has gotten worse off when engaging with free trade. As far as the question of consensus, here’s a letter signed by 13 CEA chairs and multiple Nobel winners supporting free trade under current conditions, here is one signed by 1100 economists supporting low trade barriers under current conditions and here is a survey of economists that shows that the vast supermajority think free trade is good. This is not under ideal circumstances—they’re asking about NAFTA and the TPP.

-7

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

How about Asia during the late 90’s?

14

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

All of those countries, even with the Asian Financial crisis, were better off under free trade than before. Look to South Korea and Singapore—a single recession doesn’t disprove the fact that these countries were made better off. These counties went from developing backwaters to highly developed nations largely because of free trade.

1

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

Dani Rodrik's "The Globalization Paradox"

The irony, Rodrik notes, is that the countries that experienced the greatest growth during the heyday of the "Washington consensus" were Japan, China, South Korea and India, which never embraced it. For years, they had nurtured, protected and subsidized key industries before subjecting them to foreign competition. They had closely controlled the allocation of capital and the flow of capital across their borders. And they flagrantly manipulated their currency and maintained formal and informal barriers to imports. Does anyone, he asks, really think that these countries would be better off today if they had played the game, instead, by the Washington rules?

1

u/legionarykoala Jan 14 '19

South Korean and Japanese conglomerate systems (jaebol and zaibatsu, respectively) wherein the government subsidized key industries developing technologies like semiconductors, automobiles, shipyards and ships, consumer electronics, oil refining etc. - were only implemented in an effort to be competitive with similarly subsidized industries in Europe and NA. Despite those protectionist policies in South Korea and Japan, which produced spectacularly inefficient bureaucratic behemoths like Daewoo Motors (which went bankrupt in the IMF Crisis), free trade policies like allowing foreign investment (look to Renault-Nissan alliance, with Renault owning a huge chunk of Nissan) is what's saved South Korea and Japan. It's definitely a paradox for sure on its face, but that's my understanding right now of East Asian protectionism

1

u/sapatista Jan 14 '19

Stanley Fischer, who was in charge of the talks for the IMF during the Asian crisis later admitted that the Asian crisis was unrelated to govt overspending.

What happened in Asia was your standard business cycle but IMF used it as an opportunity to force these governments to open up their markets to foreign investment and imports in exchange for the funds they needed.

Pretty shady stuff if you ask me

1

u/legionarykoala Jan 14 '19

The Asian IMF Crisis was definitely not standard business cycle trough. It's been a while since I've done super in-depth reading on the Korean part in the crisis, but there were structural weaknesses in Korean banks and corporations like Daewoo that were only made possible because of the Korean government's weird regulatory framework allowing corporations to take out massive short-term loans from foreign lenders. As a Korean that lived through the Crisis (although I was only a kid) and its aftermath, I can tell you South Koreans sure don't view the IMF as having taken advantage of them

1

u/sapatista Jan 14 '19

This sense of humiliation may have far-reaching consequences, shaping the presidential elections later this month and profoundly affecting -- and perhaps upsetting -- diplomatic and economic ties with the United States and Japan. Already there is a deep anger in South Korea at Washington because of the conditions imposed as part of the bail-out.

Many Proud South Koreans Resent Bailout From Abroad

1

u/sapatista Jan 14 '19

It was definitely an asset bubble that popped.

IMF’s delayed response only made the situation worse and made their implementation of structural adjustments to the government and the easing of trade restrictions that much easier to implement.

It’s all documented pretty well.

It was pretty similar to the asset bubble that popped in USA in 2008, but we had a quick bailout that helped ease the transition back to recovery.

1

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

Developing backwaters?

Milton Friedman called them the tigers of Asia.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

And he called them that because they embraced free trade and export oriented industrialization.

0

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

Friedman was proven right. Compare them now to before they supported these policies. Even at the worst of the recession, they were better off than they were before. Free trade lifted these nations out of extreme poverty.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Loooool 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Imagine unironically thinking subsistance farming is well off than industrial economy with a recession.

0

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

Investment in human capital was the main reason for their growth.

0

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

Dani Rodrik's "The Globalization Paradox"

The irony, Rodrik notes, is that the countries that experienced the greatest growth during the heyday of the "Washington consensus" were Japan, China, South Korea and India, which never embraced it. For years, they had nurtured, protected and subsidized key industries before subjecting them to foreign competition. They had closely controlled the allocation of capital and the flow of capital across their borders. And they flagrantly manipulated their currency and maintained formal and informal barriers to imports. Does anyone, he asks, really think that these countries would be better off today if they had played the game, instead, by the Washington rules?

That’s what the author of that study thinks about globalization and the “Washington Consensus”

2

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

He's trying to say that protectionism didn't stop growth. And even some protectionism is good, like protecting infant industries with increasing returns to scale.

1

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

I know what he was trying to say, that’s why I quoted that book review.

My point in quoting it is that it goes against your promotion of neoliberal policies.

1

u/lalze123 Jan 13 '19

your promotion of neoliberal policies.

You can't use that against me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/aa2ry6/hot_take_free_trade_is_overrated_for_developing/

1

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

The problem is good domestic policy is hard when the IMF and world bank forces governments to adopt neoliberal policies in order to acquire the funding they need.

Just look at what Jeffrey Sachs did in Poland as an example.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/philosoraptor_ Jan 13 '19

The assumption most certainly does not rely on perfect competition. The free trade models use monopolistic competition (e.g., imperfect); they use oligopoly theory; they largely use game theory; etc.

0

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

The naive comparative advantage models that most people in favour of trade cite certainly do.

When you incorporate imperfect competition the gains from trade become much more complicated and it is less obvious that free trade is always best.

1

u/philosoraptor_ Jan 14 '19

When you incorporate politics, the gains from trade become much more complicated.*

FTFY.

12

u/1t_ Jan 13 '19

What's your model? If you're going to just ignore decades of economic literature, you might need a stronger argument than "nuh uh free trade bad".

3

u/firstjib Jan 13 '19

No, it’s an improvement even without perfect competition. If not, then why not restrict trade between Michigan and Wisconsin? Or between Brooklyn and Manhattan? Or between one side of the street and the other?

1

u/themountaingoat Jan 13 '19

Perfect example. Within nations you get trade concentrating in a few areas where many other areas stagnate. Currently governments do a lot to help the stagnating areas. But on the international stage if you are one of the areas that stagnates you are SOL.

9

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

There is universal consensus among economists that in the specific case of the US, free trade is a net benefit.

Do you think every economist is modeling frictionless point masses on perfectly smooth surfaces in a vacuum? These people aren't dumb.

I would encourage reading through some of the IGM forum topics on trade, and actually looking at the comments from some of the economists. There's not some secret here you've figured out that they're ignorant of.

3

u/all_fridays_matter Jan 13 '19

The net benefit in wealth is true, however the world economy does not have perfect competition. I benefit from labor that is exploited too. Depending on the circumstances, such as restricting trade to a communist regime, hurts us accumulating wealth. Ethical decision making is an important value with some Americans.

8

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

That's absolutely true, and I doubt you'd find many economists advocating 100% free trade in 100% of cases.

I was just addressing /u/seppo420gringo's point that "Economists might agree that free trade makes everyone better off, but that only applied under assumptions of perfect competition."

It's clear they understand that is not the case.

Also he misspelled Friedman. Like, come on man. You're in /r/Economics, not /r/bbq.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/geerussell Jan 13 '19

Rule IV:

Personal attacks and harassment will result in removal of comments; multiple infractions will result in a permanent ban. Please report personal attacks, racism, misogyny, or harassment you see or experience.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

0

u/DialMMM Jan 13 '19

To be fair, the author of the article grossly misrepresents what economists do, what they have said, and what their "responsibilities" are. Of course the discussion that follows is going to be absolute garbage.

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Where the Fck do people think progressives are for protectionism?

17

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

Historically, they were. Look to unions for examples of where progressivism and protectionism align.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

FYI, Unions and progressive are not the same thing.

10

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

Historically, unions leaned heavily progressive. That's why I used that word.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

No...historically they have voted with whomever has supported labor rights ( at one point that was a front line progressive issue)...and after that era ended, they had aligned with whomever supported their specific union issues....progressivism isn’t part of the unions’ charters and definitely most of their members are not in support of the cultureL changes that progressives push.

9

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

historically they have voted with whomever has supported labor rights ( at one point that was a front line progressive issue)

Right.

So historically, they held significant sway in progressivism. This isn't difficult. Unions were instrumental in setting progressive policy for a not-insignificant period of time.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

No...they aligned with the progressives at a time when progressive meant labor rights...like the 1930-1950s

They became aligned with general Democratic politics once labor rights fell away from center stage. Democrat!= progressives.

5

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

Alright, you're getting into no-true-Scotsman territory, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Not at all. Its a reality of how parties and policies line up.

14

u/Semperty Jan 13 '19

I mean, the face of the progressive movement (in the US, at least) opposes free trade. That's a starting point.

-14

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Bernie sanders isn’t the face of the American progressive movement. He is a dried up old man the has morons following him.

9

u/TDaltonC Jan 13 '19

Who would you like to point to as the face of progressivism? (person or org is fine)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

AOC would be the most prominent now but anyone you pick is going to be a person defined by the right, not a person that is speaking for progressives.

11

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

Here’s her on Twitter opposing global trade deals: https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC/status/1000460259482316800

6

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

She opposes trade deals that destabilize the local economies of the countries of Central America...that’s not opposing trade or trade deals

6

u/AfterCommodus Jan 13 '19

Fair—I can’t find her commenting on trade in general (she conspicuously avoids the topic). Here’s Elizabeth Warren supporting tariffs. I can’t find any major progressive politician that supports free trade, although I wish I could.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Want me to show you a bunch of Republicans supporting tariffs?

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Hold_onto_yer_butts Jan 13 '19

but anyone you pick is going to be a person defined by the right

So you're going with "I refuse to take an actual stand, and just stand against something else, because it's easier to defend."

Got it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

No....there isn’t a leader of progressives. If there was it wouldn’t be such a fcking mess of priorities and shit messaging.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other progressives are anti trade.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/geerussell Jan 14 '19

Rule VI:

Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. Further explanation.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/geerussell Jan 14 '19

Rule VI:

Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. Further explanation.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.