TPP pro and con
Locked
 
|
Meh..... Yes, as the article points out, and as Marcus highlights, one would expect trade to eventually even out global wages, which is to the disadvantage of worker who previously had inflated wages. And the article points out that average wages for much of the U.S. population have been stagnant for several decades, which clearly is a negative affect of sorts. However, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the "everyone benefits" part. It is still the case that people with average incomes by U.S. standards own lots of things that those with average U.S. incomes four decades ago would find amazing. If people don't like the benefit of having increased access to cheap goods made overseas, they are perfectly capable of showing their displeasure by paying more for goods made here. It is pretty inconsistent to argue that you don't benefit from the deal while being happy to buy things that you would not have access to without the deals. On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: "Among the big losers - those who gained little or nothing - were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries." ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus,
Your comment seems to contradict itself. Aren't the "underskilled" overlapping with those "lacking opportunity"? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con "Among the big losers - those who gained little or nothing - were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries." Is that not only expected, but even intended? Globalization gives people opportunities that don't have them and takes them away from an overly expensive, underskilled workforce? -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joe Spinden Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:15 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con For an informed commentary: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-b y-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08?utm_source=project-syndicate.org&utm_medium=ema il&utm_campaign=authnote -- Joe ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Yeah, Owen, but …. . The problem is that when you go to equalize incomes between nations, the rich people in the poorer countries that are being equalized grab all the income and the poorer people in the rich countries take most of the hit, and income disparity within all countries goes up, leading to political destabilization. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Agreed. All the pundits liken it to immigration. Buying Chinese goods is equivalent to letting them immigrate, but only in an economic sense. The result is to create a world economy where each citizen is given equal rights and privileges. And median income. On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
The underskilled, in say, Vietnam or Mexico have even less opportunities than their counterparts in the United States.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 11:00 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con Marcus, Your comment seems to contradict itself. Aren't the "underskilled" overlapping with those "lacking opportunity"? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con "Among the big losers - those who gained little or nothing - were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries." Is that not only expected, but even intended? Globalization gives people opportunities that don't have them and takes them away from an overly expensive, underskilled workforce? -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joe Spinden Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:15 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con For an informed commentary: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-b y-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08?utm_source=project-syndicate.org&utm_medium=ema il&utm_campaign=authnote -- Joe ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2
Given where the US stood in 1960, isn’t it unreasonable to expect average incomes in the US to go UP during a period of income equalization between countries? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Eric Charles Meh..... Yes, as the article points out, and as Marcus highlights, one would expect trade to eventually even out global wages, which is to the disadvantage of worker who previously had inflated wages. And the article points out that average wages for much of the U.S. population have been stagnant for several decades, which clearly is a negative affect of sorts. However, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the "everyone benefits" part. It is still the case that people with average incomes by U.S. standards own lots of things that those with average U.S. incomes four decades ago would find amazing. If people don't like the benefit of having increased access to cheap goods made overseas, they are perfectly capable of showing their displeasure by paying more for goods made here. It is pretty inconsistent to argue that you don't benefit from the deal while being happy to buy things that you would not have access to without the deals.
U.S. Marine Corps On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Do you mean rich or capable? The mean incomes between countries could become more similar, but that doesn’t mean the variances within a country have to go
down. This could still lead to a situation where incomes are positively correlated to productivity. And the political destabilization could perhaps be better managed by also developing the control system in a globalized way.
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Yeah, Owen, but …. . The problem is that when you go to equalize incomes between nations, the rich people in the poorer countries that are being equalized grab
all the income and the poorer people in the rich countries take most of the hit, and income disparity within all countries goes up, leading to political destabilization.
N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Agreed. All the pundits liken it to immigration. Buying Chinese goods is equivalent to letting them immigrate, but only in an economic sense. The result is to create a world economy
where each citizen is given equal rights and privileges. And median income. On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Hi, Marcus, Well, let’s isolate the things we agree about from the things we disagree about: Do you mean rich or capable? A disagreement may be lurking here, if you assume that wealth and capability are the same. Or even if you assume that they are highly correlated. Or even if you assume that the causal arrow is from capability to wealth. But I am a typical liberal here, so any argument we might have would be boring to others. The mean incomes between countries could become more similar, but that doesn’t mean the variances within a country have to go down. ABSOLUTELY agreed. In fact, that was my point. Because the wealthy are economically more resilient, they are much more likely to capitalize on the disruption created by the equalization between national economies. This could still lead to a situation where incomes are positively correlated to productivity. Yes, granting, of course, that the wealthy have the power mostly to determine what constitutes productivity. And the political destabilization could perhaps be better managed by also developing the control system in a globalized way. Not sure what you mean by this. Can you say more? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Do you mean rich or capable? The mean incomes between countries could become more similar, but that doesn’t mean the variances within a country have to go down. This could still lead to a situation where incomes are positively correlated to productivity. And the political destabilization could perhaps be better managed by also developing the control system in a globalized way. From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Yeah, Owen, but …. . The problem is that when you go to equalize incomes between nations, the rich people in the poorer countries that are being equalized grab all the income and the poorer people in the rich countries take most of the hit, and income disparity within all countries goes up, leading to political destabilization. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Agreed. All the pundits liken it to immigration. Buying Chinese goods is equivalent to letting them immigrate, but only in an economic sense. The result is to create a world economy where each citizen is given equal rights and privileges. And median income. On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
A disagreement may be lurking here, if you assume that wealth and capability are the same. Or even if you assume that they are highly correlated. Or even if
you assume that the causal arrow is from capability to wealth. I’m making the distinction because in many situations wealth may well be a result of anti-competitive and unfair practices. (I understand the TPP has some text
about leveling the playing field with regard to anti-trust laws, but I haven’t looked at the language myself.) I don’t assume the casual arrow is from capability to wealth, but it seems worth considering that the world in which it causally related is better
than one in which it is not, and that efforts like the TPP could at least in principle facilitate that.
[..] And the political destabilization could perhaps be better managed by also developing the control system in a globalized way.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you say more? It can be understood in a community, in the U.S., or across a set of trade partners, that underskilled individuals can be retrained to be skilled workers. With
federal law leading the way, dispense with the idea that a person should be expected to learn everything they need to know by 25, and if they fail to they are stuck with a limited set of options. Some of these things aren’t just policy things, but social
norms that I think just don’t work anymore. Retraining, and learning in general, should be considered patriotic and rewarded, along the lines of programs that find work for veterans.
Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
Administrator
|
I think there more Pros than Cons, and the cultural & business advantage of equal trade laws across the 12 nations is likely to surpass any trade benefits. On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Hi, Marcus, As an oldfashioned Deweyan, I really resonate to your final paragraph. Thanks for the clarification. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels A disagreement may be lurking here, if you assume that wealth and capability are the same. Or even if you assume that they are highly correlated. Or even if you assume that the causal arrow is from capability to wealth. I’m making the distinction because in many situations wealth may well be a result of anti-competitive and unfair practices. (I understand the TPP has some text about leveling the playing field with regard to anti-trust laws, but I haven’t looked at the language myself.) I don’t assume the casual arrow is from capability to wealth, but it seems worth considering that the world in which it causally related is better than one in which it is not, and that efforts like the TPP could at least in principle facilitate that. [..] And the political destabilization could perhaps be better managed by also developing the control system in a globalized way. Not sure what you mean by this. Can you say more? It can be understood in a community, in the U.S., or across a set of trade partners, that underskilled individuals can be retrained to be skilled workers. With federal law leading the way, dispense with the idea that a person should be expected to learn everything they need to know by 25, and if they fail to they are stuck with a limited set of options. Some of these things aren’t just policy things, but social norms that I think just don’t work anymore. Retraining, and learning in general, should be considered patriotic and rewarded, along the lines of programs that find work for veterans. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Thanks everyone for tossing so many words at the issue. I'm less ignorant now. 8^)
-- glen ⛧ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |