FREE TRADE IS A BAD IDEA

Bob Lonsberry ^ | 11/25/2002 | Bob Lonsberry

[american spirit]

Some of the smartest people I've ever met ran those drill presses, lathes, etc. and were the best at solving problems while the college "edgykated" engineers were still thumbing through their old textbooks for answers.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Do you think a monopoly means only one company has control over the means of production? While that is A definition, it is not the ONLY definition. Nor is it the one I was using.
True, most companies do not try and help competitors, however, the growth of the Internet is controlled by the IETF.
Believe it or not, this is how most of the 'big' companies decide how things out to be done.

As to MicroSoft getting in trouble for 'giving things away for free', what got them in trouble was two things, using their position as OS leader to push Netscape off of the desktop (using coercion against OEMs) and changing Java in spite of licensing that said that they wouldn't.
The former is abuse of position (denying the OEM the right to install what it would like -- imagine Good Year saying you can't have a Blaupunkt stereo in your car). The second case was a clear license violation.
And if you think that MicroSoft is just doing what any business would do, then you're little better than the idiots on the other side who feel that perjury is okay because 'everybody does it.'
Just wait until it's your business getting screwed and then your tune will change. Kodak just found out. Others (Adobe) will too.
"All things in balance. Liberty above All." -- Me.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

Yes, many union contracts mention minimum wage as a reference for their wages. But here is where a free market economy comes in. The business is free to make product using more technology / less labor - or - move the jobs to another domestic location with lower labor costs - or - cease prodution if they cannot be competitive.

All three options result in the union losing members. Most unions in the manufacturing sector realize this and bargain accordingly. Where the minimum wage does have an impact is in the service sector. You can't move your hospital to North Carolina when the janitors start demanding unbearable compensation. Which is a whole 'nother topic.

[FITZ]

Bingo! Fix your government and you fix a large part of the problem.

And of course that's even more true of China and Mexico and all those other third world countries we're trying to compete with and send all our jobs to ----maybe they didn't really NEED Nafta and the so-called free-trade government deals we've made, they could have fixed up their governments and done much better.

[FITZ]

Some of the smartest people I've ever met ran those drill presses, lathes, etc

Same here. I don't know why someone thinks because they're in college or have a degree, they are necessarily much more brilliant than someone in a machine shop ---I've seen enough of both to know otherwise. You need to be average only to get into college and get a degree, pretty much the same to work in a machine shop. I've got a degree and I've seen some of the college students were weren't all that bright.

[Gunslingr3]

"Right. Including trade with communist/socialist nations using slave labor. Wow, are you a winner. Restate the statement under freedom, where one's right to liberty and property are undisturbed and state it more accurately as, " under MY freedom, where MY right to liberty and property are undisturbed AND SCREW EVERYBODY ELSE's.

Obviously the situation is better when every actor in the economy enjoys freedom, liberty, and property rights. A situation where one trader enjoys freedom, liberty and property rights the other doesn't is preferable to situation where neither trader enjoys freedom, liberty and property rights. You'd enslave this half of the world (denying me my freedom, liberty, and right to property) to 'punish' the dictators of that half. No thanks. You don't extend freedom there by trying to stamp it out here.

[Texaggie79]

Maybe, get into something that 3rd world country workers can't provide, at least.

You have no "right" to be hired. You must compete for that job.

[Gunslingr3]

It was already explained quite adequately. That's what necessitated your insertion of your own wording to disingenuously set-up a straw-man to attack.

I inserted the definition for the terms you used. Let's revisit the statement from you and look for my 'straw man':

The excesses of unbridled, laissez-faire Capitalism can be just as oppressive of individual freedom and opportunity as authoritarian Communism.

The excesses of unbridled, [freedom of individuals to trade the product of their labors as they see fit] can be just as oppressive of individual freedom and opportunity as authoritarian Communism.

lais·sez faire n.

An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

cap·i·tal·ism n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Now, please try to explain again how the freedom of individuals to trade the product of their labor as they see fit is "as authoritarian Communism".

au·thor·i·tar·i·an adj.

Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.

com·mu·nism n.

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

[Texaggie79]

The stock market is it's own beast. As evidence has shown, any government tampering has hindered it.

What is happening in the market now is a correction from the past several years of overvaluation. Government policy can do nothing to prevent that, or help it.

If investors are going to buy into the hype and invest their money in an overvalued market, they take the risk of loss.

[Texaggie79]

Their intelligence, then will show when those jobs become obsolete and other more complicated services are required.

[Willie Green]

Now, please try to explain again how the freedom of individuals to trade the product of their labor as they see fit is "as authoritarian Communism".

The distinction I made between individuals and corporations in reply #107 is quite clear.

It is irrelevant how many obfuscatory definitions you post.
They're merely additional evidence of your inability to deal with the point that was made.
Smoke and mirrors, straw-men and spin.

[Protagoras]

And of course that's even more true of China and Mexico and all those other third world countries we're trying to compete with and send all our jobs to ----maybe they didn't really NEED Nafta and the so-called free-trade government deals we've made, they could have fixed up their governments and done much better.

Bingo again! Go to the head of your class! At least partially.

It is certainly true that they would be much better off free of the force and coersion which thay suffer from under their governments.

But the second part is faulty. All free people need and deserve free trade. It is part of the definition of being free. The freedom to make your own arrangements.

I'm not here to debate Nafta and the like. I support free trade, not those agreements. If they are more free than before, they are a step in the right direction. If not, they are going the wrong way. They are no doubt terribly flawed agreements between governments. Individual people are the best judge of what arrangements serve their own purposes best.

[Gunslingr3]

I'll bite, tell me how "The excesses of unbridled, laissez-faire Capitalism can be just as oppressive of individual freedom and opportunity as authoritarian Communism."

You apparently stand by it, but won't(can't?) explain it...

[FITZ]

You still haven't said when we're going to see the effects of this wonderful free trade. It hasn't happened yet and we're quite a few years into it. Of course a few people have benefitted but there doesn't seem to be many.

[Protagoras]

And if you think that MicroSoft is just doing what any business would do, then you're little better than the idiots on the other side who feel that perjury is okay because 'everybody does it.'

I never said that. Anyone who says so is little better than an idiot.

[Protagoras]

Now if you are going to refrain from name calling, I'll address your other points, If not, lets just have a pissing match and call each other names. I give what I get so it's your call.

[jonno]

thank God I'm a professional artist. There are some things only a human being can do...

If as you predict there will be no work for the average joe, who then will buy your work?

I digress however...

Your argument is really circular I believe. If everything is to be automated and relatively few have a job, for whom then are all these goods being manufactured? Again, supply and demand - if there is no demand, there is no reason to produce.

The beauty of capitalism is that SUCCESSFUL entrepreneurs only produce a product they can sell. I believe the flaw in your logic is seeing the world as a "static pie", when in reality the pie keeps getting bigger and bigger. A visionary doesn't see 1 billion Chinese as "too many mouths to feed", but rather sees the opportunity of an immense marketplace.

The problem we in the west face is not too many workers with nothing to do - just the opposite - we are having to import our work force from the "developing" world.

Capitalism = balance (eventually :-)

Regards,

[Texaggie79]

Quite a few years into it? What are you talking about? NAFTA? We have been practicing close to free trade for decades, and we have the worlds strongest economies, our standard of living far surpasses any other nation, we are the leader in the highest paying job markets. Free trade is to thank for our affluence.

[Protagoras]

why aren't the 401K plans and the stock markets doing well? You'd think the stock market would be bursting through the top if free trade was working as it was claimed it would.

In the first place as many here have pointed out, there is no "free" trade. And the outcome is proportional to the amount of interference.

Secondly, check out the time frame when the so called "free trade" agreements went into full effect and then check the level of the stock market then and compare it to now. You might be surprised at the results, even given the largest stock market crash since the depression.

[american spirit]

Well, the jobs do not become obsolete they're just transferred to some poor soul who gets paid a bowl a rice per day or worse, some guy who's going to get his organs harvested if he doesn't make quota. I fail to see what's so beneficial about transferring high paying (high taxation) jobs somewhere else to be replaced by service jobs with pay scales nowhere near what the manufacturing economy produced.

Another thing that the free traders never factor into this discussion is that each manufacturing job in effect created a multiple of support/service jobs estimated to be approx. 5:1. As I've before, only the vast explosion of debt has masked the true destruction of our flawed trade policy.