This is also a great argument for increasing funding in universities. Also a great argument for reducing prohibitive zoning laws in cities to increase density. Also a great argument for how policy makers underestimated the effects of social distancing policies during COVID. We should probably start considering anxiety disorders as more than a mental health crisis, but also an economic and innovation crisis.
Part of me wonders if the US administration might agree with you on half of this. "Yes, exchange of ideas is crucial to economic growth, but we're America and we're the greatest, so it's everybody else benefiting from our ideas! About time we stopped letting them mooch off us!"
I like the post a lot. I think the thesis is clear, compelling, and underrated.
I also want to register that I am very skeptical of the 8 percent number from Bernhofen and Brown, and from similar types of studies. These trade models make very restrictive structural assumptions that would break down as a country switches from some trade to absolutely no trade. For example, Japan has no oil! The costs of no trade vs. very little trade will be huge because in a world with very little trade, Japan can still access oil. My understanding of these trade models is that they do not make this prediction.
I am also curious how well these models help us understand high value trade where a single product moves through multiple countries during the assembly process.
Superficially, we could interpret this as an indication that tariffs are not as bad today as they were in the past, since today ideas have many other ways to spread even when trade is reduced due to tariffs.
This is also a great argument for increasing funding in universities. Also a great argument for reducing prohibitive zoning laws in cities to increase density. Also a great argument for how policy makers underestimated the effects of social distancing policies during COVID. We should probably start considering anxiety disorders as more than a mental health crisis, but also an economic and innovation crisis.
Part of me wonders if the US administration might agree with you on half of this. "Yes, exchange of ideas is crucial to economic growth, but we're America and we're the greatest, so it's everybody else benefiting from our ideas! About time we stopped letting them mooch off us!"
I like the post a lot. I think the thesis is clear, compelling, and underrated.
I also want to register that I am very skeptical of the 8 percent number from Bernhofen and Brown, and from similar types of studies. These trade models make very restrictive structural assumptions that would break down as a country switches from some trade to absolutely no trade. For example, Japan has no oil! The costs of no trade vs. very little trade will be huge because in a world with very little trade, Japan can still access oil. My understanding of these trade models is that they do not make this prediction.
I am also curious how well these models help us understand high value trade where a single product moves through multiple countries during the assembly process.
Superficially, we could interpret this as an indication that tariffs are not as bad today as they were in the past, since today ideas have many other ways to spread even when trade is reduced due to tariffs.