The US economy is so large and complex that despite the effects on it of its tariffs and subsidies, it will grow and be an attractive market for ROW and if ROW wants to participate in US growth, then they have to deal with US's subsidy=tariff & tariff=subsidy by removing their own tariffs and subsidies. If they want to advantage their local producers they can do it by lowering taxes.
Is that it?
Yep.
Are there other upsides?
Yes.
Am I missing it altogether?
Nope.
If I did get it, then Morck is incorrect with this:
"Meanwhile, Mr. Bush is preparing a legacy that
may match that of Herbert Hoover, who helped
turn the recession of 1929 into the Great
Depression by setting up the towering trade
barriers of the 1930s."
He's dead wrong. He's trying to cast Bush according to his own left leanings. That's the drift in all of his writings. It's so easy to talk their talk, but it's impossible for them to talk what works.
In his more scholarly works he can't play fast and loose trying to sell what he believes lies within the taste of the masses. Don't be fooled by his lip service to the contemporary swing away from socialism. You can see that in this double talk:
Thus, Japanese governance practices did not assign effective control rights to residual claimants. This, we argue, led to a widespread misallocation of capital that mired Japan in excess capacity and liquidity problems.
Assign effective control rights to residual claimants? What drivel.
Corporate governance has little to do with Japan's problems. Japan has one core problem: their inexorable pursuit of neo-mercantilism. That may have some far-fetched relation to governance issues, but Morck can't blow it up into his extreme conclusion, at least not anywhere outside Hahvahd. |
