The Strange Moral Relativism of "Free Trade" \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

The Strange Moral Relativism of "Free Trade"

1740 sats \ 13 comments \ @Undisciplined 5h econ

First, the caveat: Yes, I understand that there's a consistent libertarian case for free trade as a policy position.

With all the discourse around tariffs, I wanted to highlight something of a moral oddity in the arguments being used by many free trade libertarians (I am a free trade libertarian, btw): namely, the idea that we (Americans) should happily take advantage of subsidized exports from poorer countries.

I do agree with the economics of the argument: By subsidizing exports, other countries are imposing a deadweight loss on themselves and passing savings along to US consumers.

Why are libertarians celebrating this, though? Poor, oppressed foreigners are being stolen from by their authoritarian governments and American consumers are benefiting from it financially. Thinking this is a good situation is odd and thinking you have a right to take part in it is even stranger.

Libertarians certainly understand that subsidies are wrong and economically harmful, and that they benefit a select group of politically connected cronies. Nothing about that changes just because it's happening in a foreign country and your grocery bill benefits from it.

Saying "That's how they run their country. It's none of our business." is a plea to moral relativism, which libertarians generally avoid. Libertarians also usually understand that the "they" who rule is not the same as the "they" who are ruled. Is it just too uncomfortable to acknowledge being the beneficiary of abuse?

I can't help but draw parallels to the abolitionists of two hundred years ago, who refused to buy the products of slaves. I think they're mostly viewed as having been "on the right side of history", but they're probably on the "wrong" side of most "free trade" arguments. Another of those arguments being that it doesn't help the poor oppressed foreigner to stop doing business with their oppressor (yes, many lefties get all mixed up about who the oppressors are).

Anyway, I have no brilliant conclusion to offer. What do you all think?

view all related items

102 sats \ 3 replies \ @SpaceHodler 3h

Is it that different from buying subsidized goods from your own country though?

The US subsidizes agriculture for example. What should a libertarian in the US do, stop buying groceries made in the US?

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 2h

No, I don't think it's very different. My point is that libertarians don't celebrate and champion those transactions.

39 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 40m

I think what they celebrate is free trade in the generic sense not the specifc personal moral sense. Maybe this is the difference?

FWIW I see your point and this is something I've thought about as well.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 35m

I think they don't notice the inconsistency in saying "If they want to sell us stuff below cost, why should we object?"

Partly, I think that because I know I've made that point before without really thinking about it.

39 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 32m

I do agree with the economics of the argument: By subsidizing exports, other countries are imposing a deadweight loss on themselves and passing savings along to US consumers.

Another of those arguments being that it doesn't help the poor oppressed foreigner to stop doing business with their oppressor (yes, many lefties get all mixed up about who the oppressors are).

I have wrestled with this as well. Especially when reading Christians writing about the problems with "Capitalism". I'm sure you have heard the arguments around economic development in developing countries. The TLDR being factory workers are paid pennies to do this work, yet it is much better than the subsistence farming they did before. And as you say, abstaining from buying goods on a mass scale could result in a worse outcome.

Another lesson we fail to learn is US child labor. It wasn't the government that stopped it. It was prosperity. In most parts of the world people work to not starve. We don't work our kids because we can afford not to first and foremost. If a society can't the alternative is starvation.

I think it's good to wrestle with these concepts vs just blaming capitalism or saying it's all good and let them sort it out with little thought.

I don't have an answer either but rather I find the responses by the two sides pretty unimpressive. The free market argument seems more logical to me though. But, US based corporations use politics to manipulate local governments to possibly exploit their workers and the US gov for presure in trade arrangements. So with that in mind we are not talking about pure free trade. My guess is pure free trade would be vastly superior to the status quo. To me the big mistake on both sides is thinking we have true free trade today. We don't. But it's a scale not a boolean. The closer we get to 100% free trade the better. That's my gut instinct at least.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 22m

I know I would appreciate something like a "Free Trade Certified" label on products, but there probably aren't enough people who care about that to justify it.

It's hard to know how to send the market signals you want to, in this situation. The producers aren't the ones putting the subsidies in place and it would be suicidal for them to turn them down, unless there were some way to charge a premium for unsubsidized products.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @coinhome 3h

You're absolutely right to feel uncomfortable. If we believe subsidies and state oppression are unfair, we shouldn't celebrate benefiting from them, even if they come from abroad. Sometimes the economic argument makes us forget empathy and moral coherence. It's not about stopping buying everything, but about recognizing that not everything cheap is good, and sometimes looking the other way is more comfortable.

34 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 3h

Anyway, I have no brilliant conclusion to offer

That's where I'm at, too. Beautifully put, though

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 3h

Thanks

45 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 5h

You cannot centrally plan morals or the weight of them upon peoples decisions. You're free to have an opinion about it tho: judge me for using cheap products from China like the 1.6M sats phone I am typing this reply from, or the cheap 4yo MBP - that I paid 17M sats for at the time -that I could have written this from. My problem is though that I have no alternatives that fit my requirements in these cases.

If there are western made products that fit my requirements or even almost fit it - my hardest requirements are around security and durability - I'd happily pay a premium even for similar quality. But the alternative has to be there and it has to be real: building new sweatshops in the US to create the same item but then overpriced isn't an improvement.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 4h

I'm not judging anyone for these consumer decisions. I'm just noting how some of the arguments people use seem to be incongruous.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 4h

You cannot cope with the fact that the Chinese MIXED economy is more productive and efficient than your crony capitalist US economy.

The US government subsidises far more industry including agriculture than the Chinese or Europe do.

The US government has meddled with if not outright invaded multiple other nations and infringed upon their sovereignty and international law for many decades - it goes on with unlawful drone strikes and extraordinary renditions.

Libertarians cannot cope with the reality that government is the largest factor in the wealth of nations and that nowhere, ever, has a wealthy nation established and maintained without the government being a major factor in that process.

When the US dominated global trade, it was a mixed economy.

You need to start dealing with reality.

China has won the trade war.

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @Akg10s3 3h

Wow!!! I agree!! Although it's hard to accept, China has taken economic control!! And Trump is trying in different ways to make the defeat of our "Asian Partners" less noticeable....