| ViciousVi said:
|
Notice the last part of the quote, " in practice, it's a lot more difficult to distinguish one from the other. While this doesn’t necessarily mean we should disregard currency manipulation as a meaningful concept, it does highlight some of the more biased views that are only recognized when some other country is doing the manipulating"
I think that describes it pretty well. Who is to say China is even consciously undervaluing its currency, while the U.S is not distorting its for other reasons (maintaining its status as the world reserve currency is beneficial to U.S's oil escapades)? Certainly it can be a side-effect of their monetary policy. And honestly, you mention it as a "beggar-thy-neighbor" policy as if the U.S has never done anything that comes close to "beggar-thy-neighbor." (see: post Great-Depression.) Although I guess it doesn't have to today, because it outright invades countries and ignites coups to enhance its interests. If every country installed tariffs because they perceived the other as playing unfairly, we'd be living in a new age of mercantilism (and consequently warfarism.)
It is also important to realize there is a comparitive advantage to having China (or any other non-capital intensive country) do manufacturing and the U.S transition to a service-based economy producing health-care, science, higher education, and technology. Is Sanders not ackowledging this? The companies would go to China regardless of its currency status because the cost of labor in the U.S (or most first-world countries) is quite astronomical for world standards, mostly because collective bargaining for wages and benefitis happened in a time before easily globalized trade, and were not consequently suited to the global market.
I never said Sanders doesn't want people in China to come out of poverty. He doesn't want it if it means he can't tax big corporations to pay for American welfare or if it means American wages stagnate at a level much higher than China's for a while until China catches up. I understand why he makes this argument, he is a politician in the United States and not China afterall. But if China and the U.S were in the same political entity which he was running for political office he'd be demanding redistribution from the U.S to China. This counteracts his entire ideology. Furthermore, the assumption (or short-sightedness) that wages in China won't increase is false, as they already have over the last 20 years. Eventually they will stabilize with first world standards, once China can solve its urban vs. rural division, and manufacturing jobs will move to the next capital deficient nation (possibly somewhere in Africa or South America.) But notice how he doesn't just want to punish China and Burma (relatively undemocratic places) but also Chile and Singapore - both liberal polities(at least today.) Overall, limiting trade through tariffs because some people are violating the rights of others, is the equivalent of placing sanctions on North Korea for the same reason. The establishment in these countries aren't harmed, but the common person is. Additionally, what is the best way of bringing democracy and liberalism to illiberal places? By trading with them. The more we interact with them the more they'll change for the better. We can already see this in China 2016 vs. China 1970. Overall it is silly to punish regular people who are just trying to survive because their governments violate their rights, and tariffs - whether intentional or not - do just that. Not to mention the negative effects on consumer goods at home, which is something that always must be considered in the debate about economic welfare.
Also, I didn't say lowering trade restrictions is the only way to increase utility, but it is the fairest way. Giving special priveleges to any single group is not acceptable. Picking winners and losers in the world is not acceptable. There is a good utility argument that it creates distortions in how people interact with one another that in the long-term can affect total utility, but that is not why we should oppose protectionism. We should oppose it because it unfairly favors one special interest group over another. As for the intellectual property issue with regards to Singapore - it seems as if it is just being brought up the standards of the U.S and Europe. I personally am not a fan of the current intellectual property rules in the U.S (and Europe), but it seems like a small negative to a bill that will overall open up markets and trade. Sanders seems to apply a zero-tolerance policy to free-trade, when he doesn't do this with other things that might have negatives (such as his extravagant welfare programs.) It is a very rigid and uncompromising way to go about it. That is why he seems quite the protectionist.
Hillary has become a bit harsh on free-trade recently, compared to her past. Albeit, she is nowhere nearly as bad as Trump (and in my eyes Bernie.)
