Replies

Dr Fischer is actually correct that you CAN have a win-win situation in trade. The concept is know as Pareto Optimality, whereby to people or countries etc. shift production and resources whereby they have a more optimal output than they did previously.

We have all experienced this professionally, in moving from an inferior job to a superior job. Your employer is better off and you are better off - that IS a win-win situation and there is nothing Swamp-like or CFR etc. about this reality.

Now, the concept of Pareto Optimality is agnostic toward social utility or costs. For years, as countries moved toward that blue Pareto line there were displaced workers whose jobs were either eliminated by technology or outsourced. The usual solution to that social cost was either "re-train for a higher paying job" or "learn to code." In a well-functioning society, that would work, like it did when we moved from an agrarian to industrialized nation. Furthermore, the introduction of the PC to the workplace did wonders for productivity (remember the typewriter?) but in many of those cases the workers DID upgrade their skills - admins learned how to use a word processor.

The huge difference in the case of American workers' jobs being mechanized or outsourced away or replaced by cheaper laborers domestically was that few cared...they became a voting block that was dropped in favor of other blocks, like GenXers, Boomers, etc. As a result, the nation moved toward Pareto Optimality with disregard to the forgotten American.

Trump is arguing that the social cost IS an important element in this debate. He is effectively saying that, in the short-run, America would be ok living in Pareto sub-Optimality to re-employ American workers. The unspoken linchpin in Trump's approach is that, once reengaged, that American worker (who, btw, comes from a mix of races, creeds, etc) can outptoduce more efficiently and with greater creativity any worker elsewhere and America would get back to Optimality.

Now, this MAY cause a displacement of workers in America who are basically illegal and the political re-capture by Trump et al of forgotten Americans from all walks of life who would likely vote enthusiastically for Trump et al...and THAT is the REAL reason why this is such a BFD.

Pareto Optimality is a simple approximation of reality. It does not capture the higher order effects of innovation that result from participation in a wider variety of productive endeavors. It also does not capture the risk inherent in Pareto optimized allocation decisions.

Once a disruptive factor enters the situation the model is no longer useful.

Consider just one simple case, the gun producing nation and the butter producing nation get into a war.

The usual solution to that social cost was either “re-train for a higher paying job” or “learn to code.” ...... I love(actually loathe) the people that say stuff like this. Because the guy that has worked for one of the Class 1 railroads for over 20+ years, driving trains, and loses his job because a hedge fund like, Mantle Ridge, buys up controlling shares and fires about 7000 employees, after the railroad had a record year in profits, because he’s going to make the railroad more efficient....and his justification for that is the fact that he more or less destroyed the 2 biggest railroads in Canada before finally finding a board of directors that were willing to buy his snake oil.

Furthermore, the introduction of the PC to the workplace did wonders for productivity (remember the typewriter?) but in many of those cases the workers DID upgrade their skills - admins learned how to use a word processor..........the word processor is/was just a fancy typewriter where you didn’t need white out or the white eraser ribbon installed.

As a result, the nation moved toward Pareto Optimality with disregard to the forgotten American ...... now you’re talking and this is what, IMHO, the President is talking about. Is he not saying to the world and everyone, lets keep trade fair and balanced and let America and the American worker compete on a level playing field? Hasn’t he said, repeatedly, that he would love ‘free trade’ agreements as long as they were actually “free” and that American manufacturers could compete? Which is something they’ve not been allowed to do.

The unspoken linchpin in Trump’s approach is that, once reengaged, that American worker (who, btw, comes from a mix of races, creeds, etc) can outptoduce more efficiently and with greater creativity any worker elsewhere and America would get back to Optimality....... I truly cannot understand why so many people cannot understand this or at least acknowledge this. If a Wall St guy isn’t a fan, oh well. But at least acknowledge that the President, the first one in a long time, has confidence in America and the American worker, and that we would out-hustle anyone. We did it at some point in the early 1940’s if my history serves me right.