More "Free Trade" Fail.

[HOLLYWOOD]

DANNO: Not to be insulting, as you could be correct that protectionist measures might help foster more jobs edit: protect more jobs from being destroyed in our country temporarily, but ultimately it is an economic distortion that leads to decreased total output which results in less overall wealth.. so that argument is similar to the argument that the free market failed so we need more regulations.. We don't have free trade, we have govt. managed trade and central banks in every country around the world printing and manipulating currencies...

Ultimately free trade brings about more prosperity, and with a free market it would be fantastic for our country.

This practice has been done 1000's of times over especially lately, in the high tech sector of silicon and every American's favorite, Flat Panel TVs. Let get a little micro econ... as far as domestic production terrorism, Bill Gates is at the top of the list. This where your corporate Top Secret Board/War Rooms hammer out with the Attorneys on corporate espionage, patent theft/infringement, cost analysis, and destruction of the competition through multiple routes ie, Golden Parachute Buyouts, Corporate Raiding, or a slew of Anti-Trust operations. Gate successfully stole plenty of ideas, patents, or destroyed lesser companies.

Hell, Bill Clinton and the NSA used their Echelon Intel network to spy and intercept; Business Comm, Industrial espionage/anti-trust OPS abroad. disclaimer: (That's one I can use because it's public knowledge)

It mostly comes down to how America can compete with the most Expensive, Intrusive, and Burdensome government on the planet. Anti-Trust will continue around the world as competition and business models, but there's so many variables, it's like squeezing a balloon.

Ultimately I think a balance needs to be reached. Free trade of course has its benefits, but being nice and letting someone rob your house is just plain stupid. China dumped well pipe on the market and forced Pennsylvania pipe makers to shutdown. The Free Trade argument, I imagine, would be "well if the PA pipe company couldn't innovate to compete with China, then they should shutdown and retrain --- creative destruction, etc." Unfortunately, after China drove the pipe manufacturers out of business, they began to raise prices. Again, I imagine the Free Trade argument would be "Well then the Penn'a pipe manufacturer could start up and compete. Unfortunately, there are tons of fixed costs and risked involve with stopping and starting enterprises including market, financing and many assorted other risks. On a chalkboard it works out perfectly in theory, but in reality if you drive an industry sector to shut down, it's very costly to start it back up.

LIVEVIDEO.com won't embed...
[video]
http://www.livevideo.com/video/CanE...85414FBBC0B75C7ADC6D39/enough-is-enough-.aspx[/video]

http://www.livevideo.com/video/CanE...85414FBBC0B75C7ADC6D39/enough-is-enough-.aspx

 

[mtj458]

Very well:

1. Because I am an American, because members of my family are Americans, because my neighbors and my city/State are Americans.
2. That is relative. Chaos in Detriot is more likely to effect me.
3. My family and neighbors are not of one race. Race is superficial.
4. National origin is more relevant. It has to do with location, distance, language, values, population density. A house can be filled with people of all races. If you are outside the house, then those inside decide if you can come in. The relevant difference is whether you are in the house or outside the house.

And my rebuttals:
1. Again, if we substitute White for Americans, we would say "Because I am White, because members of my family are White, because my neighbors and my city/State are White." The first two are obviously ethically wrong, to me at least. The third isn't true but if it were it would be racist too.
2. Point taken, I completely disagree that it will cause chaos.
3. My family members are not of one national origin, and most people I know have at least some family outside of the country.
4. A. Why does location matter? Is it any different from distance?
B. Most people in Mexico are closer to San Diego than I am in Philly.
C. Why does the language of who I trade with matter?
D. Since when are peaceful person values subject to government laws in a libertarian society?
E. Why does population density matter?
F. You're point about households contradicts your main point. When Americans trade with foreigners, it is not America trading with another country, it is people in America trading with people in another country. When my household exchanges goods and services with a household in India, I am doing so with my own property. You living in the same country as me is not the same as you living in the same household as me, and so you should have no business deciding what I do with my own household.


Anyway, my whole point is based on Steven Landsburg's article http://www.thebigquestions.com/forbes/forbes.htm . Like him, I'm tired of defending this topic economically. It is one of the few topics that economists belonging to almost any school of thought unanimously agree upon, and none of the objections stand up to empirical data. Sure, you might find minor examples every now and then but that's no basis for enacting laws that are mostly destructive and interfere with my right to exchange my property with whoever I see fit.

 

[forsmant]

There is no market free from human manipulation and force. Get over it.

 

[axiomata]

From today's Mises Daily.

"Economic Nationalism Is a Philosophy of War"

Some choice excerpts:

Liberalism did not and does not build its hopes upon abolition of the sovereignty of the various national governments, a venture which would result in endless wars. It aims at a general recognition of the idea of economic freedom. If all peoples become liberal and conceive that economic freedom best serves their own interests, national sovereignty will no longer engender conflict and war. What is needed to make peace durable is neither international treaties and covenants nor international tribunals and organizations like the defunct League of Nations or its successor, the United Nations. If the principle of the market economy is universally accepted, such makeshifts are unnecessary; if it is not accepted, they are futile. Durable peace can only be the outgrowth of a change in ideologies. As long as the peoples cling to the Montaigne dogma and think that they cannot prosper economically except at the expense of other nations, peace will never be anything other than a period of preparation for the next war.

Economic nationalism is incompatible with durable peace. Yet economic nationalism is unavoidable where there is government interference with business.

There is no use in conjuring away these conflicts by wishful thinking.

A lot of wishful thinking in these woods. And a lot of people who mistakenly associate real free trade with global governance and the loss of sovereignty. From Mises to Ron Paul, I can't, for the life of me, understand where this idea comes from.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

4. A. Why does location matter? Is it any different from distance?
B. Most people in Mexico are closer to San Diego than I am in Philly.
C. Why does the language of who I trade with matter?
D. Since when are peaceful person values subject to government laws in a libertarian society?
E. Why does population density matter?
F. You're point about households contradicts your main point. When Americans trade with foreigners, it is not America trading with another country, it is people in America trading with people in another country. When my household exchanges goods and services with a household in India, I am doing so with my own property. You living in the same country as me is not the same as you living in the same household as me, and so you should have no business deciding what I do with my own household.

Whoops, I was mixing immigration policy in with trade policy. That's where population density comes in.

I don't really have anything against true international trade (as opposed to global corporatism and governance). I do have something against income taxes, and would prefer they be completely replaced with flat, across the board Tariffs, assuming that the Federal government will minimally exist and need some revenue.

 

[freshjiva]

Tariffs on everything coming into the country, combined with massive tax reform or elimination of taxes on business and profit, along with tort and regulatory reform or elimination.

Make it expensive to outsource, make it profitable to do domestically.

This is probably the only thing I disagree with you on, my brother.
All I have is three words: Smoot-Hawley Act.

But hey, even the founding fathers disagreed

 

[Anti Federalist]

This is probably the only thing I disagree with you on, my brother.
All I have is three words: Smoot-Hawley Act.

But hey, even the founding fathers disagreed

From the NYT, by Ben Stein:

At the time of its enactment, exports were only about 5 percent of the economic output of the United States and still outweighed imports. (Even now, exports are a smaller part of output in the United States than in any other large developed nation.) To say that the act, which applied to a distinct minority of imports and which raised tariffs generally by only about six percentage points, caused the Depression is almost comical. It did no good, but compared with the titanic monetary policy disasters of the era, the effect of Smoot-Hawley was probably very small, or so most mainstream economists believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/business/10every.html

But hey, even the founding fathers disagreed

And, surprisingly, one of things they disagreed vigorously over was this very same issue.

We're in good company.

 

[dannno]

There is no market free from human manipulation and force. Get over it.

lol, do you not understand that a free market means free from GOVERNMENT manipulation (government who has a monopoly on force)??

 

[JRegs85]

Here's where I'm torn:

Free trade works on paper - the theory sounds nice ("government regulation is bad").

However, how can anybody say that the push for free trade has been beneficial over the past 15-20 years? Michigan has had a 10-year recession. Other Rust Belt states have similar situations. If free trade is good, shouldn't the lost manufacturing jobs have been replaced with other decent (if not better jobs)?

I agree that free trade is supported by abstract theory. Unfortunately, I believe that REALITY indicates otherwise.

 

[noxagol]

The correct answer is: Lower the tax burden on American workers so they can earn less per hour but still have the same real wage. Cutting the bloated military budget down to about 100 billion by bringing every one home and leaving everyone else alone is a good start.

If you want to create jobs here you MUST address government spending. Nothign else will do it right.

 

[dannno]

Edit: Ya ^

However, how can anybody say that the push for free trade has been beneficial over the past 15-20 years? Michigan has had a 10-year recession. Other Rust Belt states have similar situations. If free trade is good, shouldn't the lost manufacturing jobs have been replaced with other decent (if not better jobs)?

I agree that free trade is supported by abstract theory. Unfortunately, I believe that REALITY indicates otherwise.

Well you're wrong about "reality", because NAFTA and CAFTA are government managed trade, not free trade.. we don't have anything close to free trade.. not to mention all of those things can be blamed on domestic policy, over taxing/regulating, expensive foreign policy, etc.. In fact those are primarily WHY so many jobs are going over seas, because our government is too big, it crushes the economy, that's why it's cheaper to build stuff other places.. not because of free trade.

 

[forsmant]

lol, do you not understand that a free market means free from GOVERNMENT manipulation (government who has a monopoly on force)??

If they didn't have a monopoly then everyone would use force. Oh wait lots of peeps do.....

 

[RonPaulMania]

One of the major causes of the fall of the Byzantine empire was free trade (it was the longest empire in history).

Free trade has short term benefits, and long-term problems. Just like Byzantium they benefitted from free-trade initially as the cost of goods helped saving, but when the jobs went away, and their wealth was exported they realized the long-term benefits were horrible.

Anyone who is a big free-trader answer me this...

If the country has $100 in wealth (yes, I know that's ridiculously low) and we import more than we export you are trying to tell me everyone prospers when that country spends more than produces and eventually that $100 goes down to $50 because we exported our wealth for cheaper goods? You see the idea that the products are cheaper therefore we save on goods is a fallacy, because eventually the work-force is decimated and there is less wealth period.

Do the math, put $100 on a table, devise a free-trade system, and create one country which always is spending more than it takes in. It's just like the game of monopoly, you'll see what happens. It's not hard to figure out.

 

[mtj458]

You're ignoring the role of investment in trade balances. Running a trade deficit in no way means that a country is in debt (in America's case, the debt contributes, but it's not the only cause. And the problem is the debt rather than the trade deficit.). And can you give me an example of this decimated work force? Yes, jobs are destroyed, but you ignore the new jobs created. We've had relatively free trade for 200 years here and the unemployment rate has been relatively low the whole time, excluding recessions. Unless you want to tell me that this recession was caused by free trade, to which I'll reply that you're wrong.

Let's try this experiment. Over the next 10 years, you export half of the stuff you acquire to my household. I'll give you none of my stuff. You'll run a gigantic trade surplus, and I'll run a gigantic trade deficit. When the ten years are over, we'll see who's wealthier.

 

[Anti Federalist]

We've had relatively free trade for 200 years here and the unemployment rate has been relatively low the whole time.

Free trade amongst ourselves.

For roughly 150 of those 200 years, there were substantial import tariffs in place.

 

[mtj458]

I said relatively. Obviously we don't have perfectly free trade, but it's been better than most countries at least. If you go here you can see (one organization's opinion of) which countries have the freest trade and view them as a ranking. http://www.heritage.org/index/explore I'd rather live in the countries on the top of that list than the bottom. There are other factors of course, but free trade has a lot to do with it.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Well you're wrong about "reality", because NAFTA and CAFTA are government managed trade, not free trade.. we don't have anything close to free trade.. not to mention all of those things can be blamed on domestic policy, over taxing/regulating, expensive foreign policy, etc.. In fact those are primarily WHY so many jobs are going over seas, because our government is too big, it crushes the economy, that's why it's cheaper to build stuff other places.. not because of free trade.

Well, that, and the fact that the countries getting the jobs are run by completely oppressive regimes. All US taxes and regulations removed, it's still not free trade.

 

[RonPaulMania]

Let's try this experiment. Over the next 10 years, you export half of the stuff you acquire to my household. I'll give you none of my stuff. You'll run a gigantic trade surplus, and I'll run a gigantic trade deficit. When the ten years are over, we'll see who's wealthier.

That's not what trade is. You produce and sell. To use your example it would be like me selling you half of the stuff to acquire your household, and also other people's households as well in another country. You HAVE to pay me as I have no desire to give you these things for free. So your country is losing it's wealth to pay me for my stuff.

It's really that simple. At first it's great for the "cheaper country" as they reap the benefits of more savings, but eventually the wealth is destroyed.

This country got wealthy on tariffs and exporting goods. Now you want to tell me we can get wealthy doing just the opposite while China is prospering through tariff free exports and heavy tariffs on their imports... ok.

 

[Cowlesy]

:-*

I fucking hate you.

Meh, I love-hate you.

Bastard.

Your avatar makes sense to me now.

 

[denison]

Well, that, and the fact that the countries getting the jobs are run by completely oppressive regimes. All US taxes and regulations removed, it's still not free trade.

qualify that, which countries?

and is it anymore oppressive than coporatist-socialist police state system we have going on?

from canada and switzerland POV your government is very oppressive(genocide/warmongering squads ie CIA/MIC). should they beable to restrict all their citizen from trading with you?