Do you think the benefit was one way?

Boo

Why would a trade ever happen if it didn't benefit both parties?

Here's the way I view it, through a lens of economic efficiency:

the manufacturing jobs that disappear when you cut tarrifs were only able to exist with the protection of the government

If Apple produces iPhones in Asia, we get iPhones more cheaply and they get jobs.

Who won?

they couldn't make their products as quickly and cheaply as some chinese lads

so when we cut the tariffs, we improve global efficiency,

this does raise political problems, since those factory workers get mighty pissed off about it

If efficient means a job going to whoever can do it most cheaply, sure.

and lots of towns die

So realpolitik probably means that they're gonna want some form of compensation for their losses

So we skim a few of the gains generated by efficiency and cheap goods, e.g. with a VAT, and use the funds to invest in the productivity of those areas/industries with job losses

e.g. with job training

then they'll be in a position of having well-paid jobs not because big govt protects them, but because they're actually highly productive

That doesn't sound so bad.

One weakness of many economists I think is that it all works out from a number perspective.

`then they'll be in a position of having well-paid jobs not because big govt protects them, but because they're actually highly productive`
right right, which is why even though our populations are more highly educated than ever before, still our lower and middle classes have stagnated for a generation because there just aren't that many high paying service jobs

genius

But people are not flexible worker drones that can just reallocate themselves to another industry on a whim.

I'm just waiting until AI overlords don't need humans for any tasks

On the balance sheet of the national economy it might look like it all balances out, but not on a local scale, which is where politics comes in.

If we can help people to meet that ideal of economic flexibility, maybe that is a good approach.

This would be one of my loudest criticisms of the neoliberal approach over the past few decades: failing to soften the blows that their policy lands on certain classes & areas

the thing is they're not ultimately doing this for the benefit of the community

they're doing it for the benefit of their rich donors

also related, the incessant need to bring in and endless stream of migrant workers

the politicians have very clear loyalties

I'm not sure if we have a need.

and it is not to the people

I can't really speculate on the motivations, it's pretty specific to the political system

it's not specific

But I take the same hammer to migration

it's general, all western countries are pursuing the same policy

It benefits some chunks of the population, harms others, overall good for global efficiency

It might be if we had a free market.

Therefore, skim some of the benefits (extra taxes on migrants, limited access to welfare) and use them to compensate the natives who lose out

I don't see the efficiency if half of them come for welfare.

^^

In Europe migrants have a welfare use 4x that of the native population.

That extends on average to 5 years after their arrival.