I think the issue with example 2 is that it is an undefined concept. "Free trade" is often meant as no tariffs, but the key element oft ignored is that the good or service must be 'identical' to the good or service in the local market - predominantly around issues such as regulations, labor and environmental standards. As summarized by Rodrik (2018):
“Trade agreements could still result in freer, mutually beneficial trade, through exchange of market access. They could result in the global upgrading of regulations and standards, for labor, say, or the environment. But they could also produce purely redistributive outcomes under the guise of “freer trade.” As trade agreements become less about tariffs and nontariff barriers at the border and more about domestic rules and regulations, economists might do well to worry more about the latter possibility. They may even adopt a stance of rebuttable prejudice against these new-type trade deals—a prejudice against these deals, which should be overturned only with demonstrable evidence of their benefits.” (https://www.nominalnews.com/p/when-free-trade-isnt-free)
I have a bit of a disagreement (possibly) with the free trade part: I believe in free trade with free countries, but I don't think we should sign free trade agreements with China or Russia for example. Deepening our economic ties with our allies and partial allies (e.g. India) would be good, and if we could provide economic incentives for more neutral countries to side with us over Russia/China, that could well be worthwhile, too.
We do need an abundance agenda @Micah Erfan and I broadly agree with the outline presented here.
Simple, broad programs, are better than complex ad hoc ones.
If I were designing a better society:
-Deregulate housing, occupational licensing, and undo all other counterproductive regulations.
-Abolish the capital gains, corporate incomes, and personal income tax.
-Replace income with Land Value and Value Added tax.
-Voucherize education and healthcare
As a side note, I am not totally sold on NIT or UBI, but I can make the case for generous child tax credit.
I lay out a justification for these policies at https://www.lianeon.org/p/starthere
I think the issue with example 2 is that it is an undefined concept. "Free trade" is often meant as no tariffs, but the key element oft ignored is that the good or service must be 'identical' to the good or service in the local market - predominantly around issues such as regulations, labor and environmental standards. As summarized by Rodrik (2018):
“Trade agreements could still result in freer, mutually beneficial trade, through exchange of market access. They could result in the global upgrading of regulations and standards, for labor, say, or the environment. But they could also produce purely redistributive outcomes under the guise of “freer trade.” As trade agreements become less about tariffs and nontariff barriers at the border and more about domestic rules and regulations, economists might do well to worry more about the latter possibility. They may even adopt a stance of rebuttable prejudice against these new-type trade deals—a prejudice against these deals, which should be overturned only with demonstrable evidence of their benefits.” (https://www.nominalnews.com/p/when-free-trade-isnt-free)
I have a bit of a disagreement (possibly) with the free trade part: I believe in free trade with free countries, but I don't think we should sign free trade agreements with China or Russia for example. Deepening our economic ties with our allies and partial allies (e.g. India) would be good, and if we could provide economic incentives for more neutral countries to side with us over Russia/China, that could well be worthwhile, too.
Really good list of ideas, despite being a libertarian, I basically agree with 90-95% of this and would likely say 100% is an improvement.