lots of dimensions have changed. the gilded age emphasizes dimensions of inequality in wealth and its undermining of democracy and corruption of power. we are worse on those dimensions now, and that’s beginning to corrode some of the other improvements you point to. 1/

the arc of history did okay for a while, but it’s pointing in a dangerous direction. and i don’t think it will bend back toward any kind of justice or improvement of mass circumstance unless we address those core imbalances. /fin

I don't think we should be agnostic, to the degree balance is what we're after, tariffs just tax too much! (There might be other cases for tariffs, e.g. protecting defense-critical industries, even though even there I think there are better ways to go.) 1/

I like that your proposal is about trying to create a new set of international norms. I think that's critical. 2/

I think it's also critical, given the level of international discord and distrust, that deficit countries (who tend to find imbalance politically disagreeable, despite the consumption stimulus) have unilateral, non-discriminatory (ie non-bilateral) tools to insist upon balance. 3/

But while the actions are unilateral, internationally agreed norms should legitimate them, acknowledge imbalance as a problem and bless a suite of tools deficit countries can unilaterally deploy to address them. (As the original Bretton Woods accords did!) /fin

I hope so! But unfortunately, opponents often don't have to go through voters, their role as donors, or potential donors to opponents, is enough. 1/

If we could get public engagement for a smart capital flow management norm, that might override, but as you say, it'd take some education before voters see and understand and might affirmatively support this stuff. 2/

I don't think it's impossible! I think voters are only stupid when the zone is flooded with shit, and under anything approaching sane electoral, media, and civil society institutions publics can be powerfully motivated for not obvious or stupid things. 3/

So, I try to do my part to make the case. But I'm not so hopeful under current circumstances, when the zone is noah's flood of shit, our commercial institutions prefer we stay divided and subject to their algorithms and ads, our electoral institutions encourage fascism. /fin

The effect isn’t restricted to rich people investment, but it affects it very directly, whereas tariffs affect only consumption costs directly. Investors prefer tariffs to capital controls. Ask them. 1/

A foreign payouts tax would affect the relative pricing of domestic vs foreign goods, but less than a tariff, because a large part of gross trade flows offset. Tariffs tax the gross trade flows, both sides if there’s retaliation. 2/

A foreign payouts tax affects only net flows, affects prices less and targets only what we mean to discourage — overall (not bilateral) imbalance. /fin

“If it were easy, Trump would have done it.” I don’t think so. I don’t think Trump understands the connection between net capital flows and trade imbalance. I think he decided in his 20s or 30s that tariffs are great and have fetishized it since. 1/

Capital controls restrict rich-people investment, rather than merely raise consumption costs that are in any case a small fraction of rich-person income and wealth like tariffs. Trump wouldn’t like the idea of restricting rich-people investing. /fin

( there’s a whole series of posts on this, see the list at the end. i really do think this is the best mechanism for balancing trade given the current low-trust state if geopolitics. )