|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2015 00:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that. Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them.
Trade is not a cultural exchange. There are societies that are huge traders and who are very recluse from a cultural standpoint : the jews in history were that kind of people, but there are a lot of other kind of ethnic group, like the Mozabites in Algeria, who are specialist of trading and finance, and who are also one of the most recluse group of the country (women cannot leave the village and are basically forced to marry another Mozabite). The society reproduce itself almost exactly culturally through women. But I know economy doesn't care about anthropology.
Also, bounding two people by interests does not prevent war : this idea that there is a rational argument (bombing hurts you too) is just rhetoric. Most murders in our societies are in families, or between ^eople that know each others : bounding two people, creating a dependancy, does not lower the chance of confrontation but usually increase it.
|
On April 09 2015 00:21 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 00:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that. Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them. So... Why did European kingdoms/nations bash their heads into each other for (over) 2 millenia? And in general just about as long as kingdoms/nations and trade relations existed? Because of the staggering success of trade relations keeping each other from going to war?
Countries go to war for a lot of reasons. International trade wasn't such a big deal in 1 AD.
|
On April 09 2015 01:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 00:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that. Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them. Trade is not a cultural exchange. There are societies that are huge traders and who are very recluse from a cultural standpoint : the jews in history were that kind of people, but there are a lot of other kind of ethnic group, like the Mozabites in Algeria, who are specialist of trading and finance, and who are also one of the most recluse group of the country (women cannot leave the village and are basically forced to marry another Mozabite). The society reproduce itself almost exactly culturally through women. But I know economy doesn't care about anthropology. Also, bounding two people by interests does not prevent war : this idea that there is a rational argument (bombing hurts you too) is just rhetoric. Most murders in our societies are in families, or between ^eople that know each others : bounding two people, creating a dependancy, does not lower the chance of confrontation but usually increase it.
It may not be universal but trading more generally results in more cultural exchange. You'll know more about Korea if you watch e-sports.
Yes, rational arguments for not going to war are not a guarantee of peace, but losing that rational argument only hurts the peace argument.
|
On April 09 2015 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:21 WhiteDog wrote:On April 09 2015 00:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that. Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them. Trade is not a cultural exchange. There are societies that are huge traders and who are very recluse from a cultural standpoint : the jews in history were that kind of people, but there are a lot of other kind of ethnic group, like the Mozabites in Algeria, who are specialist of trading and finance, and who are also one of the most recluse group of the country (women cannot leave the village and are basically forced to marry another Mozabite). The society reproduce itself almost exactly culturally through women. But I know economy doesn't care about anthropology. Also, bounding two people by interests does not prevent war : this idea that there is a rational argument (bombing hurts you too) is just rhetoric. Most murders in our societies are in families, or between ^eople that know each others : bounding two people, creating a dependancy, does not lower the chance of confrontation but usually increase it. It may not be universal but trading more generally results in more cultural exchange. You'll know more about Korea if you watch e-sports. Yes, rational arguments for not going to war are not a guarantee of peace, but losing that rational argument only hurts the peace argument.
But do I watch ("consume") e-sports like a korean ? Culture is not a collection of goods, it's usage, custom and history. I can watch football like a brezillian, it doesn't mean football is the same for me from a cultural standpoint. Take the TV show dallas, it's international but (there are study about it) almost no country watch it with the same eyes : some countries prefer specific characters, hate specific characters, and those preferences are cultural.
And no ? I just said that dependancy does in fact increase confrontation. Can you prove me wrong ? If the link that you built with another is hurting you, the rational reaction is to cut it.
|
Countries are not a single thinking entity, they're an agglomeration of people. The mechanisms through which free trade makes countries more peaceful is that it increases the costs of war for the general population - jingoism becomes an unattractive idea if it puts your job and your family's sustenance at risk -, and exposes the population to foreign people.
I don't buy the free trade leads to inequality argument. According to the law of comparative advantage, free trade lifts both countries up. I don't know of one example of a country that became richer thanks to its protectionist policy, while I know of many examples of countries that found prosperity through it: Portugal had the 2nd highest rate of economic growth between 1950-2000 in a very large part thanks to joining GATT, EFTA and later the EEC. Moreover, protectionism is usually a policy made to protect economic elites within countries, at the expense of the prosperity of the general population.
I also don't feel that I'm fighting anyone when I import electronic components from China, services from around the world and sell products around the world. Commerce is not war, nothing like it.
WhiteDog, the claim is that ceteris paribus, free trade leads to more peace. One can't claim that free trade alone prevents wars totally or that protectionism inevitably leads to war. I think the idiot economist made a decent job of correcting for other control variables and found a significant correlation on the impact of protectionism on war. As for his World War 1 argument, what he is saying is that there wasn't a move to free trade before WW1, what happened was that improvements in transportation led to more trade between countries. What he argues then is that the increase in tariffs and protectionism leading up to 1914 helped foster war:
+ Show Spoiler +According to the opportunity cost hypothesis, these mutual dependencies should have prevented war. The outbreak of war in 1914 thus seems to contradict these claims. On the other hand, by pointing to the rise of tariffs and economic regulations in the decades leading up to July 1914, the second-image commercial peace hypothesis discussed here would instead predict military conflict. The imposition of agricultural tariffs in Germany created an opportunity for the state to wed agricultural and industrial interests behind Weltpolitik. Whereas naval construction poisoned relations with the British, but the tariffs produced a strong anti-German coalition within Russia pressuring the government for a more aggressive foreign policy against German interests. The outbreak of war thus suggests that the variant of commercial liberalism emphasized here sheds important light on a critical case for liberal international relations theory and may help to clarify the precise mechanisms linking commerce and conflict.
|
"According to the law of comparative advantage, free trade lifts both countries up"... Lift : increase of GDP ? Then I guess we can't agree. And tell that to Africa, it's one of the most open region of the world from a trading standpoint (both import and export in relation to GDP), and almost one of the most versatile from a political and social standpoint.
Free trade can hurt specific field that play a key social role (low qualified work for exemple) and still have a beneficial impact on GDP (decreasing price of goods, permitting a reallocation of capital in economy of scale) - The idea of protectionism in infancy (or educational protectionism) enlight that pretty well (you need protectionism to build a stable industry). It can also hurt natural ressource with beneficial impact on GDP. There are tons of other exemple of instability created by free trade that can have beneficial impact on GDP and desastrous impact from a societal standpoint (the debt is another exemple of that, when financial exchange increase in a world with different financial system, like before the 2007 subprime crisis).
"I don't buy the free trade leads to inequality argument" : you don't buy that there can be desequilibrium in the balance of payment ? Open your eyes, it's all over the world.
I've never met ceteris paribus in my life. Sure, when you cut down the subject to "is it rationally a good thing to trade with someone, and does it create peace, if we all agree that trading leads to both people being rich as fuck and happy as fuck" it is pretty easy to understand the answer. How about you read Karl Polanyi, he has a different view of WW1 & 2.
|
On April 09 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2015 01:21 WhiteDog wrote:On April 09 2015 00:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that. Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them. Trade is not a cultural exchange. There are societies that are huge traders and who are very recluse from a cultural standpoint : the jews in history were that kind of people, but there are a lot of other kind of ethnic group, like the Mozabites in Algeria, who are specialist of trading and finance, and who are also one of the most recluse group of the country (women cannot leave the village and are basically forced to marry another Mozabite). The society reproduce itself almost exactly culturally through women. But I know economy doesn't care about anthropology. Also, bounding two people by interests does not prevent war : this idea that there is a rational argument (bombing hurts you too) is just rhetoric. Most murders in our societies are in families, or between ^eople that know each others : bounding two people, creating a dependancy, does not lower the chance of confrontation but usually increase it. It may not be universal but trading more generally results in more cultural exchange. You'll know more about Korea if you watch e-sports. Yes, rational arguments for not going to war are not a guarantee of peace, but losing that rational argument only hurts the peace argument. But do I watch ("consume") e-sports like a korean ? Culture is not a collection of goods, it's usage, custom and history. I can watch football like a brezillian, it doesn't mean football is the same for me from a cultural standpoint. Take the TV show dallas, it's international but (there are study about it) almost no country watch it with the same eyes : some countries prefer specific characters, hate specific characters, and those preferences are cultural. And no ? I just said that dependancy does in fact increase confrontation. Can you prove me wrong ? If the link that you built with another is hurting you, the rational reaction is to cut it.
When you trade you exchange culture. Consuming media is just one of those mechanisms. Traveling for business / pleasure results in cultural exchange as well. As does diplomacy. And cultural exchange does not mean that one culture becomes the other culture. The fact I watch Korean e-sports but am not Korean doesn't mean that an exchange isn't going on.
I'm not sure what to make of your murder analogy. Saying we're more likely to kill those close to us would suggest that it is safer to deal with foreigners, whom we interact with little, than with people in our local communities whom we often deal with.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
comparative advantage is a load of bull, free trade is still good due to tech and market diffusion etc.
|
On April 09 2015 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On April 09 2015 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2015 01:21 WhiteDog wrote:On April 09 2015 00:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that. Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them. Trade is not a cultural exchange. There are societies that are huge traders and who are very recluse from a cultural standpoint : the jews in history were that kind of people, but there are a lot of other kind of ethnic group, like the Mozabites in Algeria, who are specialist of trading and finance, and who are also one of the most recluse group of the country (women cannot leave the village and are basically forced to marry another Mozabite). The society reproduce itself almost exactly culturally through women. But I know economy doesn't care about anthropology. Also, bounding two people by interests does not prevent war : this idea that there is a rational argument (bombing hurts you too) is just rhetoric. Most murders in our societies are in families, or between ^eople that know each others : bounding two people, creating a dependancy, does not lower the chance of confrontation but usually increase it. It may not be universal but trading more generally results in more cultural exchange. You'll know more about Korea if you watch e-sports. Yes, rational arguments for not going to war are not a guarantee of peace, but losing that rational argument only hurts the peace argument. But do I watch ("consume") e-sports like a korean ? Culture is not a collection of goods, it's usage, custom and history. I can watch football like a brezillian, it doesn't mean football is the same for me from a cultural standpoint. Take the TV show dallas, it's international but (there are study about it) almost no country watch it with the same eyes : some countries prefer specific characters, hate specific characters, and those preferences are cultural. And no ? I just said that dependancy does in fact increase confrontation. Can you prove me wrong ? If the link that you built with another is hurting you, the rational reaction is to cut it. When you trade you exchange culture. Consuming media is just one of those mechanisms. Traveling for business / pleasure results in cultural exchange as well. As does diplomacy. And cultural exchange does not mean that one culture becomes the other culture. The fact I watch Korean e-sports but am not Korean doesn't mean that an exchange isn't going on.
So your point is that knowing about the other increase peace ? And I just said culture is not goods, services and media it is habits, usage, interpretation, custom, etc. The way I see flash (or Elky  ), or the way I support flash, is a usage. Knowing flash is not.
I'm not sure what to make of your murder analogy. Saying we're more likely to kill those close to us would suggest that it is safer to deal with foreigners, whom we interact with little, than with people in our local communities whom we often deal with.
I'm saying dependancy does not lead to peace, seems pretty obvious.
On April 09 2015 02:02 oneofthem wrote:
comparative advantage is a load of bull, free trade is still good due to tech and market diffusion etc.
Ricardo basically wrote that to just his political engagement against the corn laws, and then two hundred years later people view this as nothing but "a law".
|
On April 09 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:
"According to the law of comparative advantage, free trade lifts both countries up"... Lift : increase of GDP ? Then I guess we can't agree. And tell that to Africa, it's one of the most open region of the world from a trading standpoint (both import and export in relation to GDP), and almost one of the most versatile from a political and social standpoint.
Free trade can hurt specific field that play a key social role (low qualified work for exemple) and still have a beneficial impact on GDP (decreasing price of goods, permitting a reallocation of capital in economy of scale) - The idea of protectionism in infancy (or educational protectionism) enlight that pretty well (you need protectionism to build a stable industry). It can also hurt natural ressource with beneficial impact on GDP. There are tons of other exemple of instability created by free trade that can have beneficial impact on GDP and desastrous impact from a societal standpoint (the debt is another exemple of that, when financial exchange increase in a world with different financial system, like before the 2007 subprime crisis).
"I don't buy the free trade leads to inequality argument" : you don't buy that there can be desequilibrium in the balance of payment ? Open your eyes, it's all over the world.
I've never met ceteris paribus in my life. Sure, when you cut down the subject to "is it rationally a good thing to trade with someone, and does it create peace, if we all agree that trading leads to both people being rich as fuck and happy as fuck" it is pretty easy to understand the answer. How about you read Karl Polanyi, he has a different view of WW1 & 2.
Africa has been developing quickly in recent history. Also, comparative advantage isn't necessarily the biggest gain from trade. Exchange of ideas are often more important. For example Japan's businesses learned a lot from the US during the post WW2 occupation (Taylorism / scientific management) and then returned the favor decades later (lean manufacturing / Toyota Production System).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol dbl post you guys are too fast
|
On April 09 2015 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:
"According to the law of comparative advantage, free trade lifts both countries up"... Lift : increase of GDP ? Then I guess we can't agree. And tell that to Africa, it's one of the most open region of the world from a trading standpoint (both import and export in relation to GDP), and almost one of the most versatile from a political and social standpoint.
Free trade can hurt specific field that play a key social role (low qualified work for exemple) and still have a beneficial impact on GDP (decreasing price of goods, permitting a reallocation of capital in economy of scale) - The idea of protectionism in infancy (or educational protectionism) enlight that pretty well (you need protectionism to build a stable industry). It can also hurt natural ressource with beneficial impact on GDP. There are tons of other exemple of instability created by free trade that can have beneficial impact on GDP and desastrous impact from a societal standpoint (the debt is another exemple of that, when financial exchange increase in a world with different financial system, like before the 2007 subprime crisis).
"I don't buy the free trade leads to inequality argument" : you don't buy that there can be desequilibrium in the balance of payment ? Open your eyes, it's all over the world.
I've never met ceteris paribus in my life. Sure, when you cut down the subject to "is it rationally a good thing to trade with someone, and does it create peace, if we all agree that trading leads to both people being rich as fuck and happy as fuck" it is pretty easy to understand the answer. How about you read Karl Polanyi, he has a different view of WW1 & 2. Africa has been developing quickly in recent history. Also, comparative advantage isn't necessarily the biggest gain from trade. Exchange of ideas are often more important. For example Japan's businesses learned a lot from the US during the post WW2 occupation (Taylorism / scientific management) and then returned the favor decades later (lean manufacturing / Toyota Production System).
And ? I never said trade had necessarily no beneficial impact. I specifically said it increased GDP in previous post. It also implied it could lead to desequilibrium and increase in inequalities, social unrest and political struggle, increased rivalities and opposition between countries, etc. My point is not that trade necessarily leads to war, but that it does not lead to peace.
And Africa is indeed growing, thanks to the creation of a state and economic policies.
|
I'd argue that too much free trade isn't exactly the problem with Africa.
I agree that opening borders can create stress on specific industries - that is precisely the point, to readjust your production to the areas where you have comparative advantages. The point is that overall, the impact is a net positive.
|
On April 09 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:
"According to the law of comparative advantage, free trade lifts both countries up"... Lift : increase of GDP ? Then I guess we can't agree. And tell that to Africa, it's one of the most open region of the world from a trading standpoint (both import and export in relation to GDP), and almost one of the most versatile from a political and social standpoint.
Free trade can hurt specific field that play a key social role (low qualified work for exemple) and still have a beneficial impact on GDP (decreasing price of goods, permitting a reallocation of capital in economy of scale) - The idea of protectionism in infancy (or educational protectionism) enlight that pretty well (you need protectionism to build a stable industry). It can also hurt natural ressource with beneficial impact on GDP. There are tons of other exemple of instability created by free trade that can have beneficial impact on GDP and desastrous impact from a societal standpoint (the debt is another exemple of that, when financial exchange increase in a world with different financial system, like before the 2007 subprime crisis).
"I don't buy the free trade leads to inequality argument" : you don't buy that there can be desequilibrium in the balance of payment ? Open your eyes, it's all over the world.
I've never met ceteris paribus in my life. Sure, when you cut down the subject to "is it rationally a good thing to trade with someone, and does it create peace, if we all agree that trading leads to both people being rich as fuck and happy as fuck" it is pretty easy to understand the answer. How about you read Karl Polanyi, he has a different view of WW1 & 2. Africa has been developing quickly in recent history. Also, comparative advantage isn't necessarily the biggest gain from trade. Exchange of ideas are often more important. For example Japan's businesses learned a lot from the US during the post WW2 occupation (Taylorism / scientific management) and then returned the favor decades later (lean manufacturing / Toyota Production System). And ? I never said trade had necessarily no beneficial impact. I specifically said it increased GDP in previous post. It also implied it could lead to desequilibrium and increase in inequalities, social unrest and political struggle, increased rivalities and opposition between countries, etc. My point is not that trade necessarily leads to war, but that it does not lead to peace. And Africa is indeed growing, thanks to the creation of a state and economic policies.
At a global level trade has helped with a lot of those things. You can probably find exceptions, but trade has been a major driving force behind the rising global middle class, and for poorer countries catching up to richer ones. Trade also pushes for a lot of good things like stable government and the rule of law.
|
Simplyfing reality can only lead you that far I guess. There are ton of work on development, especially since the failing trials of the monetary fund in africa (the washington consensus). There are clear explanations on the role of free market in the rising of the middle class in specific countries.
To summarize, free trade by itself don't do much for the people. India and China are oftentime opposed, but there are also many comparaison to be made in Africa or south america : the gist of it is that free trade create wealth but if nothing is made about the distribution and the usage of that wealth, it barely even touch the people and the society bipolarize itself in two class. It was an idea that was overall well accepted during Ricardo and Smith times actually (Ricardo explain that pretty well, altho he believe the capitalist and the workers are both disadvantaged in comparaison to the owners of the land).
What actually explain throughfully any stable increase in the human dev index is usually the role of the state in relation to any economic growth (only economic growth usually lead to unstable increase of the human dev index, because only one leg is solid obviously - and not the three).
|
Even if it were true that the general population isn't financially positively affected by freer trade through increase in salaries - a claim that I find hard to believe -, it does help everyone by increasing consumer choices and through the globalization of technology. Ie. tomatoes, oranges, mangoes and avocados on sale in Danish supermarkets in January; smartphones bringing everyone to the internet age in the 3rd world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
economic discussion is pretty plagued by badly defined terms and vague ontology, because of the drive towards simplification and abstraction.
'free trade' is slapped onto to y kind of trade activity but these come in different shapes and sizes. a contract to extract minerals in africa with revenue going to the goverrnment and nothing for the populace is described by the same 'free trade' as expansion of export industry in china with foreign capital, technology and logistics. a silly way to discuss dynamic happenings.
the way comparative advantage is used in these discussions is also post-hoc of development and specialization, which are the actual causes of 'advantage.' trade is not necessarily due to advantage, but is part and parcel to the development of said advantages. it's a rather superfiical analysis of how development and trade work.
|
On April 10 2015 00:23 warding wrote:
Even if it were true that the general population isn't financially positively affected by freer trade through increase in salaries - a claim that I find hard to believe -, it does help everyone by increasing consumer choices and through the globalization of technology. Ie. tomatoes, oranges, mangoes and avocados on sale in Danish supermarkets in January; smartphones bringing everyone to the internet age in the 3rd world.
This is not a question of belief, open your eyes. You put aside the simple of idea of inequalities (in competitivity) or stable imbalance in trading to support your twisted vision, which says a lot about the usefulness of our discussion... which is null. Hard to talk with priests.
|
Now that was a bit douchey. A person who does not believe without evidence ("open your eyes" =/= evidence) is not a priest but an agnostic - you have your definitions messed up. You claimed free trade by itself doesn't do anything for the people. Do you believe that the people of Japan would be better off if they had remained in autarky in 1868? To you believe the general population of Europe are not better off because of the single market?
Again, a change in trade policy can result in the disruption of import-competing industries and the benefits in the short-term may go disproportionately to specific industries and regions (like the maquilladoras in northern Mexico). In the long-term, after dynamic adjustments of the economy to free trade the efficiency gains result in a bigger pie and, IMO, higher average real wages. On top of that, you can't ignore the impact on consumers - older Portuguese people speak of the time that they'd drive to Spain to buy Coca-Cola and foreign candies; my girlfriend remembers how bananas were a luxury item in Lithuania -; and on technology imports for local businesses (which in Japan's case led to its fast industrialization.
|
On April 10 2015 18:59 warding wrote:
Now that was a bit douchey. A person who does not believe without evidence ("open your eyes" =/= evidence) is not a priest but an agnostic - you have your definitions messed up. You claimed free trade by itself doesn't do anything for the people. Do you believe that the people of Japan would be better off if they had remained in autarky in 1868? To you believe the general population of Europe are not better off because of the single market?
Again, a change in trade policy can result in the disruption of import-competing industries and the benefits in the short-term may go disproportionately to specific industries and regions (like the maquilladoras in northern Mexico). In the long-term, after dynamic adjustments of the economy to free trade the efficiency gains result in a bigger pie and, IMO, higher average real wages. On top of that, you can't ignore the impact on consumers - older Portuguese people speak of the time that they'd drive to Spain to buy Coca-Cola and foreign candies; my girlfriend remembers how bananas were a luxury item in Lithuania -; and on technology imports for local businesses (which in Japan's case led to its fast industrialization.
I said something specific, I said trading can lead to desequilibrium, and I specifically pointed out AN EVIDENCE, which is the existence of global desequilibrium in the balance payment at the international level, showing that EMPIRICALLY there are indeed stable (and huge) desequilibrium in global trading (with countries having long term excedent, and countries having long term deficit).
Those desequilibrium are, of course, very dangerous : if the countries in excedent reinvest what they gain in capital (debt, household or firms) in countries in deficit and not in their own internal demand, it can lead to situations where countries with excedent gradually own part of the countries in deficit (which is exactly what has been happening with China, Saudi Arabia or Germany).
So now, unless you prove me that global trading does not lead to desequilibrium and thus permit equal development of every country participating (which contradict reality) or unless you prove to me that those desequilibrium that we see are only temporary (which contradict reality again), or unless you find me institutions, laws or whatnot that permit to prevent those desequilibrium at the global level (like Keynes proposed in his time in the Bretton Woods negotiations), then I guess the discussion is over ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
