Talking can be extremely enriching


What I love about our CSEM is the fact that we are put into intimate environments where we have the ability to discuss with others our personal beliefs on a wide variety topics, with people who may share completely contrasting beliefs. After last week’s discussion on Ha-Joon Chang, I walked with Henrique to Duncan Student Center to continue our discussion from class (he, Bridget, and I were in a small group in class). Our conversation revolved around the themes we had discussed in class including the belief that capitalism should be less regulated to function more efficiently, as well as the disadvantages to welfare and socialism. And although I had very different beliefs and still do not know what is best for our nation as a whole, it was definitely an eye-opening and thought-provoking talk!
In particular I loved the fact that I learned much more about different schools of economics which I did not know even existed. I learned that behavioral economics was the study of psychological processes that influence an individual when making decisions in different economic contexts, and that in the scope of traditional schools of thought, economic behavior was driven by rational decision making by individuals. We also discussed the Austrian school of economics and praxeology, the study of “human action that is concerned with the conceptual analysis and logical implications of conscious actions towards chosen goals” (Ludwig von Mises’ definition).
         I kept coming back to our conversation on the fact that capitalism should be less regulated to function more efficiently, and while I agreed that the beauty about capitalism was its liberties, I also do not believe in complete deregulation, because in my experiences, things left unregulated are more likely to become chaotic, especially when motives do not align. Thus upon further reflection stimulated by our discussion I concluded that all economic choices are also political ones, and that there is a thin line between free trade and bad policies.
I am not saying that a free market economy is bad, on the contrary, capitalism has shown to be fruitful for a nation and can lead to great things, but free-market policies on trade can be very destructive if not regulated properly. Fragments of text from class that support my belief include Thing 7 in Ha-Joon Chang’s book (specifically page 62 and 118-119) which discusses that quite hypocritically, rich countries do not employ the same policies of free trade that they demand from developing nations, which obviously does not promote healthy economic growth for these nations. One specific example is the SAP program in Africa: "The main reason for Africa's recent growth failure lies in policy - namely, the free trade, free-market policy that has been imposed on the continent through the SAP" (124). Another example I found from an outside source can be seen in the NAFTA trade agreement and the South Korean Korus trade agreement. According to Forbes, “The trade deficit is the single biggest job killer in our economy, particularly manufacturing jobs…Both the NAFTA and the South Korean Korus trade agreements might have been good for Wall Street and the multinational corporations but they eliminated jobs in America and expanded our trade deficit”. 

(https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#2b98b122ccce)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thing 11, Foreign Aid, Paternalism, and Africa

A tie in to my art talk and sending out hopeful messages

Billet de 20 francs-- Debussy