The hybrid approach sounds a bit like this: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/why-on...
23 karma · joined December 21, 2018
Why can't we have a more nuanced discussion and acknowledge both: a. that globalism, free trade, and automation have negatively impacted blue collar workers b. that much of blue collar quality of life in good old days did come at the explicitly racist policies, starting with slavery and continuing through federally enforced redlining in which has been the main source of wealth accumulation [1]
It's also worth noting that many working class gains in the "good old days" excluded black workers due to historical racial divisions in labor movement and unions explicitly opposed economic liberties for racial and ethnic minorities. [2] MLK was murdered while working to unify the racial and labor struggles. This division continues to be exploited by populist politicians.
> If people truly cared about the plight of the uneducated working class, there'd be taxes on wealth, incentives against rentiers, far higher minimum wages FWIW, I agree with these items and grew up on a farm in the white american heartland
The GI bill is another good example of economic support for the working class from the "good old days" that like much of the Jim Crow era primarily benefited whites at the expense of other racial groups [3]
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-unf...
2. https://racial-justice.aflcio.org/blog/est-aliquid-se-ipsum-...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I....
Sarcasm aside, I do agree that journals and other longer period periodicals are more reliable.
True free trade benefits the ultra wealthy and the middle class as well everyone else. Everyone has more buying power as the cost of goods and services are lower. Others make money by trading with new partners and markets.
Our free trade deals are not true free trade as they just establish new kinds of winners and losers through government control.
In fact, you don't need any kind of deal for free trade to work, just let people trade what they want to trade without restriction.
> Could somebody explain to me why trying to effect the US's stance as an economic leader using tariffs is a bad idea?
As the article mentions, this is what TPP was intended to do by strengthening non-chinese trading partners in Asian region.
IMO, tariffs to protect US economy are more like tariffs or other government rules that protect any other industry - they make the pain less in the moment, but ultimately weaken the subject of the protection as they are not forced to compete on merit. This leads to a more dramatic crash when competition finally comes.. there is analogy to this in theory of disruptive innovation in tech.