As Landsburg points, racism and protectionism are simply two forms of discrimination; one is based on, well, race, and the other regional affiliation. Now Landsburg claims that his analogy isn't perfect because protectionism by necessity forces itself to act on another. I don't think this is true as I believe one needs to clarify the setting in which the policy is practiced. For instance, if I was a regular person who happened to be a protectionist to the extreme, I would buy a parcel of land in Montana and fend for myself beholden to no one. If I was the same person, but a racist to, say black people, I would attempt to find a community where no black people would ever be found. I could see if Landsburg was making an opportunity cost argument about protectionism (my withdrawal from society takes my skills from society and thus forces more people to take up more of a burden, as well as takes away any potential benefits I may have provided), but I didn't get the impression that was what he was referring to. Besides, one could probably make a very similar argument about the effects of racial discrimination.
But I think the real issue at hand is it worse for government to be protectionist or racist. As government has a monopoly over the use of force, its actions in the area of discrimination are far more powerful than any private entity.
(Yes, I know if an influential CEO is a protectionist or racist he is going to affect a significant number of people with his discriminatory policies, but in his case it would be a trade-off as he would be enduring the cost of significantly limiting the size of his potential resource pool. Government faces no such cost).
So, is it worse for government to implement racist policies or protectionist policies?
It's a moot question in my opinion. Both are stupid policies, and both are immoral policies. I don't believe either provide any benefits (except to certain special interests, but that's a topic for another day).
Yet that brings us back to our second and third questions. Why would a majority of people say racism is a bad thing, but protectionism not? Is there a discernible difference between the two that makes one worse than the other?
My guess is that is a combination of our [American] view of American History as well economic ignorance.
I agree the straw man of racism vs. protectionism is ridiculous, but I don't buy that both are immoral.
ReplyDeleteI think the case for racism's immorality is pretty clear. It is wrong to treat other human beings differently beacuse of genetic traits that are completely out of their control. In other words, would you design a world that discrimnated against people based on the color of their skin if you did not yet know what the color of your skin would be?
The case that protectionism is immoral is, in my opinion, not so clear cut. I can imagine situations in which I would design a world such that protectionism were allowed despite not knowing what country I would be born in. While in the vast majority of cases I find it inhumane to effectively bar foreign workers from providing goods or services simply because they can do so at a cheaper prices, there are exceptions.
The global economy is not a level playing field and most likely never will be. I am ok with protecting American jobs with the knowledge that we have agreed to pay more for certain levels of regulation. Coal mine accidents aside, American standards of safety, environmental protections, and child labor laws, to name a few, are something I'm proud of.
I can understand an argument that would ask "why punish Chinese workers for the follies of their govenment," but I'm just not sure we can put that level of faith in the free markets. I am suspicious of the market's ability to sort out costs associated with human, environmental, and developmental safeguards.
From and an amoral perspective it is simply the right of a nation to decide what crosses their borders.