Quote:
|
No it doesn't "just" do that and if it did "just" do that, companies, trade groups and morons on the internet wouldn't lobby so hard for deregulation or view candidate Trump as being good for deregulation.
|
True, it doesn't "just" do that. But that's a huge impact of over-regulation.
Quote:
|
Tell that to the personal finance sector. The CFPB had teeth until the GOP removed them.
|
It made a mess of home lending and wound up harming many consumers. Where it was needed, in unsecured consumer loans, it was weak.
Quote:
|
Yes, one side wants to get the gains of trade and innovation while mitigating the harms. The other doesn't care about mitigating the harms. Totes the same.
|
That's an overly sunny take. Let's try it differently:
One side wants the gains of trade and innovation - the economic gains from which accrue most to educated, upper middle class to affluent people and multinational corporations - while mitigating, minimally, the harms to the working and middle class, which are enormous.
or
One side is willing to provide safety nets which pay X per worker to mitigate the losses to displaced workers which average XXXXX per worker.
or
One side is willing to arbitrage the futures of its lower skilled workers for enhancements to the futures of its higher skilled workers... and mitigate the losses to those on the bad end of the bargain with safety nets that provide for bare subsistence living.
As to Republicans, no need for adjustment of your statement of their position. They just don't give a fuck.
Let's be honest -- when you value globalization over domestic labor, you are making a choice. You are saying you are willing to allow fellow Americans in one part of the economy to suffer, badly, in order to reap gains from global trade that aren't going to trickle down to these suffering people to any extent approaching the measure of what they'll be losing.
When you say you're interested in mitigating the adverse impacts to domestic labor impacted by globalization, you're avoiding an uncomfortable fact: That mitigation will not replace - will not even come close to replacing - what these people will lose. It's more than what the GOP would give these "losers" in the global economy. But it's still just throwing tokens to people losing dollars, and dignity. And you're making the same calculation the GOP is making:
Innovations that I want, and that primarily and initially benefit capital and multinational corporations are more important than the lives of working and middle class people who will be savaged as a result of this policy decision.
I think that's a defensible position. It's also much more honest. Why can't we just admit we are picking sides?
(Please don't reply with, "But globalization makes products much cheaper for these forgotten people." Telling a guy with no job future his TV is $40 cheaper than if it were built here isn't an argument. And regarding China, with the exception of the iPhone, their products fall apart at 1/2 to 2/3 of the lifespan of similar products made elsewhere, and their generic drugs are... well, god only knows what's in that shit.)
