Over the past year or two, there has been an increased awareness of sexual harassment and sexual assault, culminating in the “#metoo” movement. The conversation, unfortunately, has gotten a little off track, with simplified “I believe the victim,” and “She lied, he died” memes dominating the conversation.
But there is a liberal way to achieve justice that doesn’t require boiling things down to simplistic taglines: respect. Respect for both the accuser and the accused. No victim should be dragged through the mud, asked about their behavior, their clothes, etc when making a claim. It is respectful to treat them as genuinely aggrieved.
Likewise, The accused should be treated with respect as well. The accused should be given a fair trial and allowed to defend themselves. The aggrieved party has the requirement to supply evidence for their claims and the court has the duty to treat both with respect and honor.
No justice system can long function without this form of respect. Without respect for the victim, it becomes biased toward the accused. Without respect for the accused, it becomes biased toward the victim. The goal here is to prevent abuse of the system by anyone. And respect goes a long way toward achieving that goal.
On this Carpe Diem post by Mark Perry, commentator Citizen Buddy writes:
It is my firm belief that Mutual Free Trade is exponentially superior to Unilateral Free Trade.
While Citizen Buddy’s comment may be true, it is wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Rarely is the choice between mutual free trade (he is using it here to state both countries’ governments do not obstruct their citizens’ trading patterns) and unilateral free trade. The relevant trade-off is between unilateral free trade and scarcityism. When faced with that trade-off, unilateral free trade will win every time.
Considering the relevant trade-offs prevents us from making a Nirvana Fallacy and keeps us disciplined in our thinking. Preferences may be one thing, but budget constraints always exist. We may prefer complete free trade, but in absence of that, unilateral free trade will do.
Business Insider reports that since Donald Trump started a trade war with China, the US trade deficit has increased. In August, this has been primarily due to falling exports. BI goes on to say:
The primary reason for the increase in the deficit [in August] was a collapse in exports, especially soybeans, which fell off by $1 billion, a 28% drop from the month prior. China, the largest buyer of US soybeans, imposed tariffs on the American crop and it appears the restrictions are taking a toll.
Placing the blame on Chinese tariffs for falling soybean exports is not entirely correct.
A tax on imports (ie, a tariff) is the same as a tax on exports. Simply put, by reducing the number of imports into a country, it reduces the amount of currency foreigners can use to buy exports. By imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, Trump indirectly imposed a tax on US exports to China, reducing the exports himself!
None of this is to say the Chinese tariffs on soybeans didn’t make an already bad situation worse. But we cannot lay the blame for the decline in exports at the feet of the Chinese.
An advantage of teaching undergraduate students as I simultaneously work on my graduate work is I get to go through both undergrad textbooks and graduate books at the same time. Currently, I’ve been working my way through Cowen and Tabarrok’s Principles of Economics for my undergraduate class and George Stigler’s Theory of Price and Donald Watson’s Price Theory and Its Uses for my research.
We often hear, primarily by people who dislike the implications of Econ 101 models, that Econ 101 is too simplistic, too unrealistic for the real world. They’ll point to other economic models that better conform to their desired views (eg, the monopsony model for minimum wage). “We can’t rely on Econ 101! It’s just too simple!”
But what’s interesting to me is that going through these upper-level texts (Stigler is a high-Masters, low-PhD text), one sees they are not fundamentally different from the undergrad texts. This holds in other texts, too, such as David Kreps’ Microeconomic Foundations. There may be more math to formalize the models, but the intuition remains the same; the implications remain the same.
Basic supply and demand analysis gets us a very long way. It is not complete, of course. No theory ever is. But supply and demand is fundamental. Seeking to overthrow the foundations will not necessarily lead to a more coherent theory.