Good points are made. If you want to understand the “side effect “ of totally free trade, read “Trade Wars are Class Wars” by Pettis and Klein. Having survived 6 years of a disastrous buy out of a German industrial machine manufacturer by a casket company (only to see the remains resold to a private equity firm), I found that the other culprit was the super easy money from 2012 to 2022. American manufacturing has been double-teamed by free trade (primarily with China) and private equity.
the logic of Mammon unbounded by individual dignity, liberty, and benefit leads to hell.
remembering that and orienting principles+practices accordingly—and communicating that prioritization, of policies which are rooted in the flourishing of people, rather than blind physics of Capital—major key.
I encourage everyone to click through to the survey itself. There's a lot of interesting stuff there.
"Option A: A culture that defines success as someone moving to a place of great opportunity and reaching the top of a prestigious field.
Option B: A culture that defines success as someone building a decent life where he grew up, raising and supporting a family, and contributing to the community."
Even given this is a highly biased question, the results are astounding. Every single demo and party grouping prefers Option B by at least 30 points.
Same results for the question on maximize consumer choice vs maximize productive employment.
For most people, abstract questions about what "free markets" or "free trade" aren't really connected to reality. Questions like these are.
The free market fundamentalists never seem to acknowledge the power differentials in any market. There is no way that individual employees can look out for their own interests when their employer has all the power. Free markets need guardrails to ensure that power is either exercised fairly or limited so that the playing field is level.
It seems like many people think of the idea of free markets in terms of "effective market competition" rather than simply "fewer rules." This data suggests there's broad buy-in to the argument that a competitive market will provide more accurate price signals and yield better economic results, and that economic regulation can reduce the extent to which unfair markets distort price signals and the profit motive, creating inefficiency.
It’s amazing that in all of this discussion and comments about “free markets” there is no mention of the fact that virtually every market in the US is highly concentrated. Monopolization is a central fact of the economy. Competitive capitalism doesn’t exist here except at the level of your local pizza shop.
Oren forgot a few questions that would capture public opinion on what the founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right-Don, has actually been doing. Taking ownership shares in private companies, deregulating crypto while pocketing massive amounts of corrupt loot, using agencies of the state to shake down corporate America (FCC, etc), pardoning criminals for cash, directing the DOJ to prosecute the Fed chair, demanding tribute from corporate America to build a self aggrandizing ballroom, wasting gvmt resources to provide food stamps to farmers after inflicting the tariffs that caused their pain initially, using tariffs to punish Brazil for prosecuting a fellow coup plotter and as a shakedown tool more generally, his leader has been a busy boy. We're a long way from free market fundamentalism. Isn't it time for MAGA to stop whining and take responsibility, after all, they control the entire federal government, again.
The "new" right seems more a throwback to the Soviet Union than an enlightened "new" approach. Too bad Oren can't muster a thought on these real world occurrences. Instead, his time is spent whining about long excommunicated "market fundamentalists". So much grievance, so little time...
Always interesting to read about Britian in 1846 when they repealed their Corn Laws and went "free market" This was probably the inflection point for the end of the British Empire. Of course, there were other factors, but this was a big factor and probably where you start to see the cracks.
By WWI they were on the way definitively. If not for the USA Hitler would have owned Europe.
Apparently the article discusses what the term "free market" means and concludes it is synonimical with something like "free and good for me market" underlying two principles. One: I can do whatever I want, hence the freedom. Two: you should not harm my interests, hence the need to make you behaving. Unfortunately, these requirements are frequently contradict if "I" can also mean "you" and vise versa.
Free market was described by Adam Smith, Joseph Shumpeter, and many others as coexistence of cooperation and competition. This is the fundamental property of that animal, anf if you wish to tame the beast and berate "market fundamentalists" for fundamentalism the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. People, obviously, do not like bad economic weather, but they erroneously substitute the word "bad" with "wrong".
If we want to keep the market "productive" we need to see clearly how close to the fundamentalist "free" it shall stay. But feeding the Chinese dragon was a big mistake for also quite obvious reason. China is very big and also controlled by a very small group of Party oligarchs. The free market / free trade proponents saw only the large mass of competing Chinese businesses... effectively directed by the oligarchy. The water molecules thrown out of tub are also competing for the place in the puddle.
True capitalism is designed as a domestic economic-social system where the returns of domestic capital are shared by domestic labor. There is no true version of capitalism that supports corporate proft maximization at any cost. "Free trade" should always be "fair trade" and never include labor as a traded element. Globalism failed because we failed to comply with those previous two principles. Global trade is good... but should only be for unique products, or when domestic demand can absolutely not be met by domestic production.
There is a further dimension, that goes beyond money. We need to protect all of our industries to at least a small extent because we never know when a particular thing might become crucial, like N 95 masks, or rare earth minerals. It's much easier to quadruple production than it is to start from scratch.
Another thing that can't be measured in strictly monetary terms..... What is best for the people of America. People are more than simply the bottom line. Safe clean places to live, hard to put a number on. Similarly time with family and neighbors.
The free marketers jumped the shark with the constant refusal to allow even the most minimum of regulation on social media and the internet. They keep trying to pretend they grew up in world where cigarettes, alcohol and nudie mags weren't regulated. Then claim it's all up the parents to monitor their kids online every second of the day. You run into the same problem with trying to conflate free markets with free trade. Letting corruption nations that have little to no environmental or workers protections, and free ride off America's protection of the sea lanes, isn't free markets, it's corruption.
Good points are made. If you want to understand the “side effect “ of totally free trade, read “Trade Wars are Class Wars” by Pettis and Klein. Having survived 6 years of a disastrous buy out of a German industrial machine manufacturer by a casket company (only to see the remains resold to a private equity firm), I found that the other culprit was the super easy money from 2012 to 2022. American manufacturing has been double-teamed by free trade (primarily with China) and private equity.
solid.
the logic of Mammon unbounded by individual dignity, liberty, and benefit leads to hell.
remembering that and orienting principles+practices accordingly—and communicating that prioritization, of policies which are rooted in the flourishing of people, rather than blind physics of Capital—major key.
I encourage everyone to click through to the survey itself. There's a lot of interesting stuff there.
"Option A: A culture that defines success as someone moving to a place of great opportunity and reaching the top of a prestigious field.
Option B: A culture that defines success as someone building a decent life where he grew up, raising and supporting a family, and contributing to the community."
Even given this is a highly biased question, the results are astounding. Every single demo and party grouping prefers Option B by at least 30 points.
Same results for the question on maximize consumer choice vs maximize productive employment.
For most people, abstract questions about what "free markets" or "free trade" aren't really connected to reality. Questions like these are.
The free market fundamentalists never seem to acknowledge the power differentials in any market. There is no way that individual employees can look out for their own interests when their employer has all the power. Free markets need guardrails to ensure that power is either exercised fairly or limited so that the playing field is level.
It seems like many people think of the idea of free markets in terms of "effective market competition" rather than simply "fewer rules." This data suggests there's broad buy-in to the argument that a competitive market will provide more accurate price signals and yield better economic results, and that economic regulation can reduce the extent to which unfair markets distort price signals and the profit motive, creating inefficiency.
It’s amazing that in all of this discussion and comments about “free markets” there is no mention of the fact that virtually every market in the US is highly concentrated. Monopolization is a central fact of the economy. Competitive capitalism doesn’t exist here except at the level of your local pizza shop.
Impressively biased question design!
The assumption behind "free markets," is that demand can elude any given source of supply.
Creating truly free markets is a worthy goal, but it's a process, not an endpoint.
Oren forgot a few questions that would capture public opinion on what the founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right-Don, has actually been doing. Taking ownership shares in private companies, deregulating crypto while pocketing massive amounts of corrupt loot, using agencies of the state to shake down corporate America (FCC, etc), pardoning criminals for cash, directing the DOJ to prosecute the Fed chair, demanding tribute from corporate America to build a self aggrandizing ballroom, wasting gvmt resources to provide food stamps to farmers after inflicting the tariffs that caused their pain initially, using tariffs to punish Brazil for prosecuting a fellow coup plotter and as a shakedown tool more generally, his leader has been a busy boy. We're a long way from free market fundamentalism. Isn't it time for MAGA to stop whining and take responsibility, after all, they control the entire federal government, again.
The "new" right seems more a throwback to the Soviet Union than an enlightened "new" approach. Too bad Oren can't muster a thought on these real world occurrences. Instead, his time is spent whining about long excommunicated "market fundamentalists". So much grievance, so little time...
Always interesting to read about Britian in 1846 when they repealed their Corn Laws and went "free market" This was probably the inflection point for the end of the British Empire. Of course, there were other factors, but this was a big factor and probably where you start to see the cracks.
By WWI they were on the way definitively. If not for the USA Hitler would have owned Europe.
Apparently the article discusses what the term "free market" means and concludes it is synonimical with something like "free and good for me market" underlying two principles. One: I can do whatever I want, hence the freedom. Two: you should not harm my interests, hence the need to make you behaving. Unfortunately, these requirements are frequently contradict if "I" can also mean "you" and vise versa.
Free market was described by Adam Smith, Joseph Shumpeter, and many others as coexistence of cooperation and competition. This is the fundamental property of that animal, anf if you wish to tame the beast and berate "market fundamentalists" for fundamentalism the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. People, obviously, do not like bad economic weather, but they erroneously substitute the word "bad" with "wrong".
If we want to keep the market "productive" we need to see clearly how close to the fundamentalist "free" it shall stay. But feeding the Chinese dragon was a big mistake for also quite obvious reason. China is very big and also controlled by a very small group of Party oligarchs. The free market / free trade proponents saw only the large mass of competing Chinese businesses... effectively directed by the oligarchy. The water molecules thrown out of tub are also competing for the place in the puddle.
True capitalism is designed as a domestic economic-social system where the returns of domestic capital are shared by domestic labor. There is no true version of capitalism that supports corporate proft maximization at any cost. "Free trade" should always be "fair trade" and never include labor as a traded element. Globalism failed because we failed to comply with those previous two principles. Global trade is good... but should only be for unique products, or when domestic demand can absolutely not be met by domestic production.
It’s fitting that @Oren Cass asks this question and it really shows his ignorance of economic issues
There is a further dimension, that goes beyond money. We need to protect all of our industries to at least a small extent because we never know when a particular thing might become crucial, like N 95 masks, or rare earth minerals. It's much easier to quadruple production than it is to start from scratch.
Another thing that can't be measured in strictly monetary terms..... What is best for the people of America. People are more than simply the bottom line. Safe clean places to live, hard to put a number on. Similarly time with family and neighbors.
The free marketers jumped the shark with the constant refusal to allow even the most minimum of regulation on social media and the internet. They keep trying to pretend they grew up in world where cigarettes, alcohol and nudie mags weren't regulated. Then claim it's all up the parents to monitor their kids online every second of the day. You run into the same problem with trying to conflate free markets with free trade. Letting corruption nations that have little to no environmental or workers protections, and free ride off America's protection of the sea lanes, isn't free markets, it's corruption.
Corruption gives too much credit; a lot of people just aren't that bright.