If some agent has been stealing from another and a policy of avoiding stealing is imposed, the robber losses. So, by worsening some agents, such a policy is not unambiguously good for the economy and maybe it should even be avoided.
This is how I interpret Krugman economics from his book on international trade. Some agents "lose" because they are not allowed anymore to benefit, say, from protectionism (until here, we agree), so a trade liberalization is not unambiguously good for the economy (with which I disagree). Plus, how is that trade liberalization should be undertaken if no (necessarily artificial) protectionism had been imposed before in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment