| >compete Have as your "goal" less the desire to "win" the global competition for corporate profits & corporate headquartering of multinationals in your nation simply on grounds of labor/profit competitiveness, and take a more nationalist view of, where necessary, having state run enterprises or "free market" competition within your borders but not complete free trade in a global sense. In other words, do no necessarily pursue as your goal to structure economy either to have most profitable companies that reduce costs by moving labor around the world to find cheapest workers, or those which try to export the most. Have as your goal at least to produce domestically as much as possible to satisfy domestic consumption demands, as well as having some minimal threshold of employed domestic workers. As it stands, US has a massive trade deficit, and a decades long decline in working age male population, especially in "flyover" US regions where manufacturing has declined the most while not being replaced by equivalent jobs. These regions also have declining population, rising suicide & opiate death rates, declining family formation / birthrates. The "telos" of our society should not put as its "end" an economy, especially one which pursues profit above all. The economy should be a tool in service to outcomes we actually desire. Like software built to do a job, not simply designed for the production of specific features. This is where global financial capitalism (as the US has a giant capital surplus which balances its trade deficit) needs to be called into question. Internal free markets is one thing. But not having a national industrial policy which prioritizes the well being of domestic workers and their families over well being of multinational corporations and banks makes our system quite degenerate over time. People should really take a few minutes and watch these 2 videos explaining the current account[0] and capital account[1] relationship, and understand that how we operate now is a political choice, which has massive consequences on who benefits of this system accrue to, and who pays the costs of this system. This system is maintained by having the reserve currency and the state using strong efforts over many years to not only maintain this GRC but strengthen it, not allowing the natural devaluation of the $ that would close these 2 imbalances and more closely balance capital and labor. Also, it is not a requirement to have a well developed economy and run massive trade deficits or not have a thriving industrial sector. Germany and Japan are 2 examples that do not run giant trade deficits like the US [3] https://youtu.be/dirBYVjDk7A [0] https://youtu.be/AimYG1jYD0A [1] https://www.conradbastable.com/essays/the-germany-shock-the-... [3] |
The blind pursuit of efficiency optimizes for the macro numbers at the expense of gutting the structure of the labor market and lived experience of people.
It’s far better to have a lower per capita GDP with a more equitable distribution of resources (such as a higher household income across quantiles)
It seems clear that some level of tariffs, caps on FDI, etc are “good inefficiencies” if done correctly.