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
Post a Comment