It's interesting you use Gaza as an example, because the central point of many of Israel's critics is that intent is a lot less important than actual consequences - ie the real, tangible impact of Israeli missiles ought to take precedence over the supposed nobility of Israeli policy-makers. In much the same way, I think the real economic consequences of protectionism are more important than the laudable motivations of the protectionists.
If the United States was seriously threatened by foreign competition, a few punitive tariffs might be in order, but I don't think our current circumstances - however dire - merit such a drastic response.
As to the substance of E.D.'s earlier comments, I think your argument suffers from selection bias. Cherry-picking a few successful examples of industrial policy doesn't guarantee that future policy-makers will continue to get lucky. Moreover, Japan's experience with industrial policy actually incurred significant costs a bit further down the road, as economic growth slowed to a crawl in the 1990s (the "lost decade") precisely because the relationship between the country's political and business classes was so incestuous.
I don't think anyone is arguing the status quo is entirely free of trade restrictions. My point is simply that domestic protectionism - whether the political justification is punitive or welfare-oriented - has the exact same impact on foreign populations. Tariffs, in other words, are apolitical - they deny foreign producers access to our market regardless of their broader political context. If you oppose punitive tariffs because they hurt foreign populations, shouldn't you oppose protective tariffs for the exact same reason?
Trade restrictions have the exact same effect on foreign populations regardless of your preferred political justification. So what's the substantive difference between vindictiveness and economic nationalism?
It's tough to thread the needle on this one, Mark, as most interventionists are pretty adept at paying lip service to the need for exit strategies and carefully targeted measures. One reason I'm sympathetic to Freddie's principled anti-interventionism is that it removes any hint of ambiguity from our strategic calculus.
This post from Roderick Long on the forgotten history of government intervention in the United States is a pretty great supplement to Madrick's argument:
That was a pretty amazing vent. Having read your earlier posts, I have to ask: Isn't it possible that factors beyond anyone's control - the economy, nervous investors etc. - doomed Culture11? It seems a bit excessive to blame Kuo for everything.
Quick addendum: This isn't so much an argument as it is an attempt to clarify my own thoughts on the subject. Tolerance, in my view, requires a certain amount of restraint on both sides of the culture war. If we're going to legislate equality, social traditionalists need to retain the ability to define their own communities of faith.
I tend to think race-based anti-discrimination laws are justified by specific historical circumstances. As to your second comment, I think a private, religiously-oriented institution has the right to define what behaviors it considers acceptable. I admit I don't know where to draw the line between legitimate anti-discrimination laws and giving private organizations and individuals sufficient leeway, but this particular example reveals something of a legal gray area. For example, I find the idea of forcing traditionalist pastors to marry gay couples pretty disturbing. If we allow congregations to exclude certain individuals from marriage ceremonies, why shouldn't religious schools have similar privileges?
At the risk of sounding like a complete asshole, is it really beyond the pale for a religious school to expel students who violate core moral guidelines? Many religious conservatives are wary of legitimizing gay relationships precisely because they fear legal protections will eventually extend to prohibiting all forms of private discrimination. This example seems to validate their concerns.
One of the reasons I think postmodern philosophy gets such a bad rap is inaccessibility. I was stuck judging a debate tournament this weekend and had to slog through some Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari (among others), and that stuff is difficult to imbibe, particularly for a non-specialist audience.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Never Go In Against A Libertarian When Phallacy Is On The Line”
Oh wow. I think episodes like this are single-handedly discouraging me from ever joining the Republican Party.
On “Economic Interventionism”
It's interesting you use Gaza as an example, because the central point of many of Israel's critics is that intent is a lot less important than actual consequences - ie the real, tangible impact of Israeli missiles ought to take precedence over the supposed nobility of Israeli policy-makers. In much the same way, I think the real economic consequences of protectionism are more important than the laudable motivations of the protectionists.
If the United States was seriously threatened by foreign competition, a few punitive tariffs might be in order, but I don't think our current circumstances - however dire - merit such a drastic response.
As to the substance of E.D.'s earlier comments, I think your argument suffers from selection bias. Cherry-picking a few successful examples of industrial policy doesn't guarantee that future policy-makers will continue to get lucky. Moreover, Japan's experience with industrial policy actually incurred significant costs a bit further down the road, as economic growth slowed to a crawl in the 1990s (the "lost decade") precisely because the relationship between the country's political and business classes was so incestuous.
"
I don't think anyone is arguing the status quo is entirely free of trade restrictions. My point is simply that domestic protectionism - whether the political justification is punitive or welfare-oriented - has the exact same impact on foreign populations. Tariffs, in other words, are apolitical - they deny foreign producers access to our market regardless of their broader political context. If you oppose punitive tariffs because they hurt foreign populations, shouldn't you oppose protective tariffs for the exact same reason?
"
Trade restrictions have the exact same effect on foreign populations regardless of your preferred political justification. So what's the substantive difference between vindictiveness and economic nationalism?
On “Getting Our Priorities in Order”
It's tough to thread the needle on this one, Mark, as most interventionists are pretty adept at paying lip service to the need for exit strategies and carefully targeted measures. One reason I'm sympathetic to Freddie's principled anti-interventionism is that it removes any hint of ambiguity from our strategic calculus.
On “Madrick on Case for Big Gov’t”
What actually happened to AOTP, Mark? I never figured that out.
"
http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2008/09/roderick-long-t.html
Whoops, broken link. This one ought to work.
"
Chris -
This post from Roderick Long on the forgotten history of government intervention in the United States is a pretty great supplement to Madrick's argument:
http://www.theartofthepossible.net/2008/09/18/those-who-control-the-past-control-the-future/
On “eating my vegetables”
RSM -
That was a pretty amazing vent. Having read your earlier posts, I have to ask: Isn't it possible that factors beyond anyone's control - the economy, nervous investors etc. - doomed Culture11? It seems a bit excessive to blame Kuo for everything.
On “In defense of snark”
I'm disrupting the flow of conversation, I know, but aren't we forgetting the importance of good clean fun? For example:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/tokenism.php
Freddie's original post was also hilarious.
On “goodbye to Culture11”
Hahahahaha I do feel like this corner of the blogosphere plays host to a bunch of Culture11 groupies. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Anyway, I still like the idea of reader-supported fund raising drive. Any thoughts on whether that could get off the ground?
"
Jesus this sucks. What the hell are we all going to read now?
On “pragmatics first”
Quick addendum: This isn't so much an argument as it is an attempt to clarify my own thoughts on the subject. Tolerance, in my view, requires a certain amount of restraint on both sides of the culture war. If we're going to legislate equality, social traditionalists need to retain the ability to define their own communities of faith.
"
I tend to think race-based anti-discrimination laws are justified by specific historical circumstances. As to your second comment, I think a private, religiously-oriented institution has the right to define what behaviors it considers acceptable. I admit I don't know where to draw the line between legitimate anti-discrimination laws and giving private organizations and individuals sufficient leeway, but this particular example reveals something of a legal gray area. For example, I find the idea of forcing traditionalist pastors to marry gay couples pretty disturbing. If we allow congregations to exclude certain individuals from marriage ceremonies, why shouldn't religious schools have similar privileges?
"
At the risk of sounding like a complete asshole, is it really beyond the pale for a religious school to expel students who violate core moral guidelines? Many religious conservatives are wary of legitimizing gay relationships precisely because they fear legal protections will eventually extend to prohibiting all forms of private discrimination. This example seems to validate their concerns.
On “human beings, human limits”
One of the reasons I think postmodern philosophy gets such a bad rap is inaccessibility. I was stuck judging a debate tournament this weekend and had to slog through some Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari (among others), and that stuff is difficult to imbibe, particularly for a non-specialist audience.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.