Conservatives and the Free Trade Straw Man

[CCTelander]

If a woman allows a men to sexually use her she has given him a liberty he had no right to on his own.

We will not be allowing you to "take liberties" that end with us enslaved or dead.

Wow.

This level of mendacity truly deserves to be called out.

There really is no having an honest discussion with you, is there?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Wow.

This level of mendacity truly deserves to be called out.

There really is no having an honest discussion with you, is there?

Projection.
Trading with the enemies of liberty is not a right, it is treason.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Wow.

This level of mendacity truly deserves to be called out.

There really is no having an honest discussion with you, is there?

The conversation ended when he called the viewpoint opposing his "satanic".

You're right, there is no having an honest conversation with him. He looks out at the world and all he sees are "enemies". He's a fearful little child.

Free trade does not have to look like the Rube Goldberg machine that the state has concocted and called "free trade" today, where they dismantled American industry and shipped it to China BECAUSE they destroyed the value of the FRN. That is not the "free trade" I argue in favor of, and I doubt it's what you favor.

But that's what he does, as Tulsa pointed out... he makes that your argument, then beats you over the head with it. It's a waste of time. There are others in this thread who take an opposing view who are actually honest and thoughtful.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Trade only takes place is both sides feel like they gain. Placing barriers to Americans trading is saying you want Americans to be worse off. You can't influence the policies of other countries but you can influence American policies. Unilaterally eliminating all barriers is the only rational policy unless you are a misanthrope.

Countries don't trade. People do. If Wal-Mart wants to buy something from anyplace in the world, any barrier is infringing on a fundamental human right to do with there property as the please.

Trade is how civilized people deal with each other. When goods cross borders armies don't. Free trade is the foreign policy of a free society.

+rep

 

[Invisible Man]

To paraphrase the view of the Deplorables:

If two other people engage in a peaceful, voluntary, economic exchange of some kind with one another, that exchange might somehow destroy me and take away my liberty, by way of some indirect result not connected to that voluntary, peaceful exchange in and of itself.

So I need to prevent that indirect result that harms me by resorting to violence to interfere with that voluntary, peaceful, economic exchange (N.B. I must be the one to initiate violence against other people who only wish to engage in a voluntary, peaceful economic exchange, doing no violence to me).

And not only must I do this. But if you don't join me in support of my violent interference with those other people's voluntary, peaceful economic exchange, then you also are satanic and complicit in the indirect harm that I predict will come in the future if I don't engage in violence against those peaceful neighbors of mine right now.

It's Bizarro world.

What they support is a recipe for another world war. It doesn't protect anyone, including themselves, from harm and a loss of liberty. Its immediate effect is the harm and loss of liberty to others, and its secondary effects will inevitably be more harm and loss of liberty even to themselves.

 

[cjm]

 

[TheTexan]

Free trade does not have to look like the Rube Goldberg machine that the state has concocted and called "free trade" today, where they dismantled American industry and shipped it to China BECAUSE they destroyed the value of the FRN. That is not the "free trade" I argue in favor of, and I doubt it's what you favor.

Manufacturing got shipped to China because they pay their workers 10 cents an hour.

A lot of the theoretical an-cap musings on free trade would make a ton of sense if the world were at an equilibrium state. But it's not. The US is (or rather, was) much more wealthy than the rest of the world. That has obviously eroded to some extent, but nonetheless the disparity continues to dramatically shape international trade.

 

[Invisible Man]

Manufacturing got shipped to China because they pay their workers 10 cents an hour.

That's a pretty good reason to have them do our manufacturing for us, instead of paying Americans 200 times that much to do it. Isn't it?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Manufacturing got shipped to China because they pay their workers 10 cents an hour.

A lot of the theoretical an-cap musings on free trade would make a ton of sense if the world were at an equilibrium state. But it's not. The US is (or rather, was) much more wealthy than the rest of the world. That has obviously eroded to some extent, but nonetheless the disparity continues to dramatically shape international trade.

The US was much more "wealthy" than the rest of the world to a considerable degree because of the inflationary policies of the Fed, but it is not because of a disparity of wealth between the US and the countries where manufacturing is occurring that led to those countries becoming manufacturing hubs. If that were the case, all of the manufacturing in the world would be done in Africa (which would make it a more wealthy continent eventually, of course). China has the second highest GDP in the world. They're not "poor", they're authoritarian. So if you want to make a case against free trade with authoritarian regimes, I'm all ears. The trope that free trade with such regimes will make them less authoritarian doesn't seem to hold water, on the surface at least.

There's really no reason that the US should erect punitive tariffs on goods coming from Mexico, for example. All that would do is prevent Americans from accessing goods/services from there, which does nothing to protect American workers but everything to punish American consumers.

 

[TheTexan]

That's a pretty good reason to have them do our manufacturing for us, instead of paying Americans 200 times that much to do it. Isn't it?

It's a short sighted way of thinking. When Bob buys a shitty $25 lawn chair from China, they are exporting American wealth to China. That money is generally going to stay in China. It will be used to build factories, raise wages, and so on. Essentially, the money will be used to "catch up" to America, using cheap wages as their economic advantage.

If Bob had instead bought a $35 lawn chair from America, they are keeping American wealth inside America. That money will be used to build factories, raise wages, and so on. Essentially, the money will be used to further America's economic advantage. Bob will see his own wage increase, and the cost of goods go down from things like automation.

America still has an economic lead, but we are squandering it by exporting our wealth to China. We would be much better off if we closed off our international trade borders and simply focused our trading inward, and continued to develop our infrastructure using automation, ingenuity, and technology, than relying on the short-term and temporary benefits of cheap labor and subsidized shipping from a country that hates us on the other side of the globe.

 

[TheTexan]

The US was much more "wealthy" than the rest of the world to a considerable degree because of the inflationary policies of the Fed

The US was much more wealthy than the rest of the world because we built that wealth through hard work and ingenuity... wealth isn't created by printing money...

, but it is not because of a disparity of wealth between the US and the countries where manufacturing is occurring that led to those countries becoming manufacturing hubs. If that were the case, all of the manufacturing in the world would be done in Africa (which would make it a more wealthy continent eventually, of course).

China is in fact in the process of developing Africa with explicitly that purpose.

China has the second highest GDP in the world. They're not "poor", they're authoritarian.

China is not poor? Are you kidding, high, or just distracted? China is still very poor, except for of course the ruling class. It's of course gotten better over the past couple decades but China is still very poor. There remains a huge wage disparity between the US and China. The high GDP is the result of having 1.4 billion people....

I'm really not sure how you can tell me with a straight face that most of China is not poor....

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The US was much more wealthy than the rest of the world because we built that wealth through hard work and ingenuity... wealth isn't created by printing money...

That's why I put "wealthy" in quotes... I was speaking to the disparity in GDP between the US and the rest of the world. We as Americans have been getting consistently poorer since the 70's, in terms of the purchasing power of our labor.

Agreed on the rest of it, but it also had a lot to do with the post WWII world where the US was the only remaining industrial nation left standing.

China is not poor? Are you kidding, high, or just distracted? China is still very poor, except for of course the ruling class. It's of course gotten better over the past couple decades but China is still very poor. There remains a huge wage disparity between the US and China. The high GDP is the result of having 1.4 billion people....

I'm really not sure how you can tell me with a straight face that most of China is not poor....

China is not "poor". the Chinese people are poor, of course, but I didn't say that "most of China is not poor". There is a ton of wealth in China. Just because it isn't distributed equally does not mean that China is poor.

 

[TheTexan]

China is not "poor". the Chinese people are poor, of course, but I didn't say that "most of China is not poor". There is a ton of wealth in China. Just because it isn't distributed equally does not mean that China is poor.

Regardless of how "poor" is defined, the point is that there is a large disparity between US and Chinese wages and that this is a dominant factor in why manufacturing was moved to China.

 

[Invisible Man]

It's a short sighted way of thinking. When Bob buys a shitty $25 lawn chair from China, they are exporting American wealth to China.

No they aren't. They are importing Chinese wealth, in the form of a lawn chair, to America.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Regardless of how "poor" is defined, the point is that there is a large disparity between US and Chinese wages and that this is a dominant factor in why manufacturing was moved to China.

Yes, of course. Because China is an authoritarian regime. As I mentioned earlier, if you want to make a case against "free trade" on that point, I'm all ears.

 

[TheTexan]

No they aren't. They are importing Chinese wealth, in the form of a lawn chair, to America.

Let's see:

America gets:
- Lawn chair that breaks after 3-4 uses

China gets:
- Increased wages
- Improved factories

And in 10-20 years when Chinese wages have caught up to American wages, and the lawn chairs are no longer cheap from cheap labor,

America has:
- Landfills filled with lawn-chairs

China has:
- Factories

 

[TheTexan]

Yes, of course. Because China is an authoritarian regime. As I mentioned earlier, if you want to make a case against "free trade" on that point, I'm all ears.

Even if China were to be a bastion of freedom they still have a GDP per capita that is something like 1/6th of the US.

Any trade with them authoritarian or otherwise, is simply subsidizing their growth as a nation. Once their wages have reached equilibrium with the US, 1 of 2 things will happen:

1) either the US will build factories in the US anyway because its no longer cost effective to ship "no-longer-cheap-shit" from 1000's of miles away, or
2) China will have invested in automation to keep their "cheap shit" cheap despite the rise in wages

In the event of #1, the US will just be 10-20 years behind in economic progress compared to if we had just started building factories now.

In the event of #2, China will become the overwhelming dominant international force in the future and you better learn to speak Chinese.

 

[Invisible Man]

Let's see:

America gets:
- Lawn chair that breaks after 3-4 uses

China gets:
- Increased wages
- Improved factories

And in 10-20 years when Chinese wages have caught up to American wages, and the lawn chairs are no longer cheap from cheap labor,

America has:
- Landfills filled with lawn-chairs

China has:
- Factories

America also has all the labor that would have gone into making its own lawn chairs available for use on other things. Now they don't just have the lawn chair. They have those other things too.

Factories are just a means to an end, that end being the product that's made (e.g. lawn chairs). Factories are the cost of producing the wealth. The thing that is produced is wealth.

 

[TheTexan]

Warren Buffett didn't get wealthy by buying lawn-chairs. He got wealthy by investing in his businesses.

A lawn chair is not "wealth"

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Even if China were to be a bastion of freedom they still have a GDP per capita that is something like 1/6th of the US.

Any trade with them authoritarian or otherwise, is simply subsidizing their growth as a nation. Once their wages have reached equilibrium with the US, 1 of 2 things will happen:

1) either the US will build factories in the US anyway because its no longer cost effective to ship "no-longer-cheap-$#@!" from 1000's of miles away, or
2) China will have invested in automation to keep their "cheap $#@!" cheap despite the rise in wages

In the event of #1, the US will just be 10-20 years behind in economic progress compared to if we had just started building factories now.

In the event of #2, China will become the overwhelming dominant international force in the future and you better learn to speak Chinese.

Assuming China was a bastion of freedom, what would be the problem in free trade with them? If the US and China were both "bastions of freedom", why would an American wish to prevent their economic development? How am I harmed by a wealthy, free China?