1) I question whether “net jobs gain” is the right framing. That says nothing about the quality of the job in question. It is easy enough to imagine someone going from a moderately well paid factory worker to a poorly waiter or barista, yet that shows up as no jobs lost. (To be clear, I have no idea if that is what happened. It is just the obvious thing that jumps out at me)
2) In general, I am a bit tired of people conflating pro-union policies with pro-labor policies. Bluntly, most workers aren’t in unions. While bailing out union pension funds obviously helps union members, it is not obvious to me how it helps the working class more broadly. Nothing that I can remember from the Biden admin was aimed at *growing* the unions. It was all just handouts to people who were already in unions.
I think a couple things are going on. First, on the right, Trump’s stranglehold on the party coupled with his Neo-Peronist brand of Big Government Conservatism has detonated any dissension from within Republican ranks, which contributes to a normative environment wherein the issue seems up for legitimate contention. Second, on the left, increasingly in adoption an explanatory model grounded in *rank lack of understanding of economic models*.
The reason is straightforward: I have had probably two dozen conversations this year with folks on the left where “trickle down economics” have been conflated with “capitalism” as well as “high stock prices”, “affordability,” and “corporate profitability”. Notably, something like “low corporate taxes” *would* more or less be interchangeable with “trickle down,” but tax policy seems to be less salient.
Then, the device is to point to the (legitimate) failure of ‘trickle-down’ to argue for the fundamental unsustainability of e.g. “capitalism” - even by non-DSA types. So why I think this is relevant here is that the same omni-conflation prevents distinction-parsing arguments like “well tariffs drive up prices” or “actually it’s good to be able to buy what you want,” since the latter erroneously gets conflated with a Reaganite position.
The *normative* baseline in Dem-leaning culture, in other words, tacitly presupposes a by-default anti-market skew.
> Notably, something like “low corporate taxes” *would* more or less be interchangeable with “trickle down,”
This is incorrect. Corporate taxes tax corporations, not the wealthy per se. Numerous studies find that corporations are extremely effective at passing on the burden of corporate taxes to not just shareholders (who are wealthier than median but are dominated by pension funds and retirement accounte), but also to labor and customers.
Your comments fits into the general post-Reagan paradigm where nobody could actually offer a coherent theory of what “trickle down economics” was.
You’re correct that that vague slur has broadened into anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism more generally, but ironically you’re participating in the very trend that brought us to this real-life reductio ad absurdum.
I don't really think I am. I agree that corporate taxes tax corporations, but the broader paradigm of 'trickle-down' was one of (in the context of the seventies), "well, we need to make it easier to start businesses and invest capital — but also, let's now generalize all that ideologically and morally to a whole host of even broader policies."
In other words, what I was trying to do was showcase something that could be a DSA-esque talking point that broadly speaking could fall under the umbrella — but isn't really in practice, because the 'economic left' doesn't really want to talk about tax policy.
And yes, I do agree that corporate taxes tend to get passed on to consumers for sure.
What exactly was "trickle down economics" and how did it fail? Are the complaints against it in fact different than the complaints you would expect in a system where "benefits are large and widespread but diffuse, while the losses are painfully concentrated"?
Good article and I, like most of Americans, apparently, am aligned that free trade is broadly good.
It does, however, bother me when I read articles about free trade that call out that Biden kept Trump tariffs on China. Usually, that is to signal that both parties are dropping the ball, if not equally. And it feels like you are doing the same thing.
But I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It can be true that tariffs are more economically costly than free trade AND that sometimes you pay an economic cost on purpose in pursuit of some other goal; say, national defense.
I don’t follow policy quite closely enough to know. But I know a number of tariffs on China would and should (imo) be used in this manner, as defense. And I think that is very different from tariffs explicitly intended to bring jobs back or protect factories in Ohio or something.
There isn’t one. That was a stupid thing to do. But I also don’t see your point. I made no claims about tariffs that don’t have a defense aspect. I specifically mention China in my comment.
Are you arguing with someone else about a completely different set of tariffs on a completely different country and replied to me mistake?
Is it that China and Canada both start with the letter C and you got confused?
No, it's because the original post *didn't* talk about Biden keeping tariffs on China, but rather talked about Biden keeping tariffs *generally* (though it also mentioned increasing a few on China).
There's no need to get upset. You very clearly made the claim that Biden is getting a bad rep for keeping tariffs on China for national defense reasons. He also kept and increased tariffs on other countries for non-defense reasons. The bad rep is deserved and he should be called out.
I did not clearly do that. It is in neither the text nor subtext. And, more importantly than both, it’s not at all a thing I think.
The way one might know that is by reading what I commented and noticing that I very specifically mentioned commentary about tariffs on China and not other countries or products.
My guess as to why Democrats are more hesitant to embrace free trade is that the people who support protectionism strongly support it, are a swingy constituency, and tend to live in competitive states. Jared Golden is one of the top overperformers in the Democratic caucus and also a free trade skeptic, which strikes me as telling. Whereas I doubt there are that many people who favor free trade who might change their vote over the issue.
To put it another way, the type of Republican who strategically votes for Democrats to counter Trump's protectionism probably lives somewhere like Connecticut instead of Wisconsin.
I humbly suggest that it's time for liberals to admit that the heavy policy focus on the rust belt hasn't been worth it and the sunbelt - with its high levels of immigrant absorption, integration (esp. black-white integration in the Deep South), and rapid improvements in social mobility - should be studied and celebrated far more than it currently is.
I'm surprised by the finding that DSA approving Dems are the most pro free trade. Is this the just being the most anti trump?
I'd be interested in a follow up poll that confirmed this further by asking questions like "Do you believe that tariffs help promote local manufacturing?"
Speaking strictly for myself:
1) I question whether “net jobs gain” is the right framing. That says nothing about the quality of the job in question. It is easy enough to imagine someone going from a moderately well paid factory worker to a poorly waiter or barista, yet that shows up as no jobs lost. (To be clear, I have no idea if that is what happened. It is just the obvious thing that jumps out at me)
2) In general, I am a bit tired of people conflating pro-union policies with pro-labor policies. Bluntly, most workers aren’t in unions. While bailing out union pension funds obviously helps union members, it is not obvious to me how it helps the working class more broadly. Nothing that I can remember from the Biden admin was aimed at *growing* the unions. It was all just handouts to people who were already in unions.
Pro union:pro labor::pro business:pro market
I think a couple things are going on. First, on the right, Trump’s stranglehold on the party coupled with his Neo-Peronist brand of Big Government Conservatism has detonated any dissension from within Republican ranks, which contributes to a normative environment wherein the issue seems up for legitimate contention. Second, on the left, increasingly in adoption an explanatory model grounded in *rank lack of understanding of economic models*.
The reason is straightforward: I have had probably two dozen conversations this year with folks on the left where “trickle down economics” have been conflated with “capitalism” as well as “high stock prices”, “affordability,” and “corporate profitability”. Notably, something like “low corporate taxes” *would* more or less be interchangeable with “trickle down,” but tax policy seems to be less salient.
Then, the device is to point to the (legitimate) failure of ‘trickle-down’ to argue for the fundamental unsustainability of e.g. “capitalism” - even by non-DSA types. So why I think this is relevant here is that the same omni-conflation prevents distinction-parsing arguments like “well tariffs drive up prices” or “actually it’s good to be able to buy what you want,” since the latter erroneously gets conflated with a Reaganite position.
The *normative* baseline in Dem-leaning culture, in other words, tacitly presupposes a by-default anti-market skew.
> Notably, something like “low corporate taxes” *would* more or less be interchangeable with “trickle down,”
This is incorrect. Corporate taxes tax corporations, not the wealthy per se. Numerous studies find that corporations are extremely effective at passing on the burden of corporate taxes to not just shareholders (who are wealthier than median but are dominated by pension funds and retirement accounte), but also to labor and customers.
Your comments fits into the general post-Reagan paradigm where nobody could actually offer a coherent theory of what “trickle down economics” was.
You’re correct that that vague slur has broadened into anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism more generally, but ironically you’re participating in the very trend that brought us to this real-life reductio ad absurdum.
I don't really think I am. I agree that corporate taxes tax corporations, but the broader paradigm of 'trickle-down' was one of (in the context of the seventies), "well, we need to make it easier to start businesses and invest capital — but also, let's now generalize all that ideologically and morally to a whole host of even broader policies."
In other words, what I was trying to do was showcase something that could be a DSA-esque talking point that broadly speaking could fall under the umbrella — but isn't really in practice, because the 'economic left' doesn't really want to talk about tax policy.
And yes, I do agree that corporate taxes tend to get passed on to consumers for sure.
What exactly was "trickle down economics" and how did it fail? Are the complaints against it in fact different than the complaints you would expect in a system where "benefits are large and widespread but diffuse, while the losses are painfully concentrated"?
Good article and I, like most of Americans, apparently, am aligned that free trade is broadly good.
It does, however, bother me when I read articles about free trade that call out that Biden kept Trump tariffs on China. Usually, that is to signal that both parties are dropping the ball, if not equally. And it feels like you are doing the same thing.
But I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It can be true that tariffs are more economically costly than free trade AND that sometimes you pay an economic cost on purpose in pursuit of some other goal; say, national defense.
I don’t follow policy quite closely enough to know. But I know a number of tariffs on China would and should (imo) be used in this manner, as defense. And I think that is very different from tariffs explicitly intended to bring jobs back or protect factories in Ohio or something.
Biden increased tariffs on Canadian lumber as housing prices exploded. What's the national defense angle there?
There isn’t one. That was a stupid thing to do. But I also don’t see your point. I made no claims about tariffs that don’t have a defense aspect. I specifically mention China in my comment.
Are you arguing with someone else about a completely different set of tariffs on a completely different country and replied to me mistake?
Is it that China and Canada both start with the letter C and you got confused?
No, it's because the original post *didn't* talk about Biden keeping tariffs on China, but rather talked about Biden keeping tariffs *generally* (though it also mentioned increasing a few on China).
There's no need to get upset. You very clearly made the claim that Biden is getting a bad rep for keeping tariffs on China for national defense reasons. He also kept and increased tariffs on other countries for non-defense reasons. The bad rep is deserved and he should be called out.
I did not clearly do that. It is in neither the text nor subtext. And, more importantly than both, it’s not at all a thing I think.
The way one might know that is by reading what I commented and noticing that I very specifically mentioned commentary about tariffs on China and not other countries or products.
The article you're responding to mentions that Biden kept trump tariffs and also that it raised the China ones, it didn't single the Chinese one out.
>>"Joe Biden shared many of Trump’s protectionist instincts and kept many of his tariffs in place, even expanding specific tariffs on China."
You called out the China piece, which is fair enough, but you then went on to claim that this means both parties are not "dropping the ball":
>>"Usually, that is to signal that both parties are dropping the ball, if not equally. And it feels like you are doing the same thing."
But they both are dropping the ball, as Biden increased non NS tariffs on allies too.
If that's not the way you meant it then I apologize, but that's the way it read to me.
My guess as to why Democrats are more hesitant to embrace free trade is that the people who support protectionism strongly support it, are a swingy constituency, and tend to live in competitive states. Jared Golden is one of the top overperformers in the Democratic caucus and also a free trade skeptic, which strikes me as telling. Whereas I doubt there are that many people who favor free trade who might change their vote over the issue.
To put it another way, the type of Republican who strategically votes for Democrats to counter Trump's protectionism probably lives somewhere like Connecticut instead of Wisconsin.
I humbly suggest that it's time for liberals to admit that the heavy policy focus on the rust belt hasn't been worth it and the sunbelt - with its high levels of immigrant absorption, integration (esp. black-white integration in the Deep South), and rapid improvements in social mobility - should be studied and celebrated far more than it currently is.
I'm surprised by the finding that DSA approving Dems are the most pro free trade. Is this the just being the most anti trump?
I'd be interested in a follow up poll that confirmed this further by asking questions like "Do you believe that tariffs help promote local manufacturing?"
Good article. I was trying to get a hold of you, continuing our conversation via Substack post here.
https://turingpolice.substack.com/p/who-will-pay-for-sousveillance