|
Pollyanna posted:So, can someone explain to me why free trade is a good thing? I keep hearing politicians harp on and on about it but it seems like something that's too abstract and disconnected to actually have much of an effect on people's lives. Why does everyone have such a boner for free trade? Ask yourself who free trade benefits the most? (Stockholders) I will expand on this answer a bit. The idea is that by lowering trade barriers then you let each country compete based on its natural advantages. The US has lots of money for capitol investment and has the expertise for design and management. Places like China, Mexico, etc. have an advantage of a large workforce that will work for lower wages. Supposedly this benefits all parties. The workers in the poorer countries are provided with jobs. The consumers are provided with lower cost goods since the companies don't have to spend as much on labor. The stockholders and executives see higher profits and are able to re-invest that money to improve production and lower cost again, so the cycle continues. The problems with this approach is it leaves behind the people who used to do the jobs in US and provides them with no alternative way of making a living. The workers in the poorer countries are more vulnerable to abuse due to the lack of worker protection in those countries. So the lower classes in the first world suffer and the lower classes in the 3rd world suffer and the elites continue to become richer and richer. SimonCat has issued a correction as of 17:32 on Nov 16, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
SimonCat posted:The problems with this approach is it leaves behind the people who used to do the jobs in US and provides them with no alternative way of making a living. The workers in the poorer countries are more vulnerable to abuse due to the lack of worker protection in those countries. Also a lack of environmental protections. Rather than fixing negative environmental impacts it just exports them to places that don't care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Ask yourself who free trade benefits the most? (Stockholders) One other thing to note is that due to the uneven distribution of economic benefits and labor being less mobile/able to find new employment than traditionally assumed, the economic benefits of free trade end up being less pronounced than they otherwise would be because concentrated wealth hurts the aggregate demand driving the whole thing. Free trade is actually pretty rad if you've got redistributionist policies and a robust social safety net (or circumstances that work similarly like an obvious and geographically proximate industry for displaced domestic labor to enter and cultural norms/unions pushing to keep wages high), but that has not actually been the case during the major push for free trade during the last decade. And the concentration of benefits made implementation of such reforms even less likely under politics-as-usual because of the degree to which they disproportionately benefit and empower elites economically. LGD has issued a correction as of 18:57 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
See this interview with Asher Edelman where he explains that average people need money to spend on what the factories make. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xSVzdUNqo
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
There wouldn't be anything wrong with free trade, if the workers in the 1st & 3rd worlds owned the stakes in their enterprises instead of private interests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So, can someone explain to me why free trade is a good thing? I keep hearing politicians harp on and on about it but it seems like something that's too abstract and disconnected to actually have much of an effect on people's lives. Why does everyone have such a boner for free trade? Basically the idea is that free trade lets you use your comparative advantages better, which means everyone is better off. If you need both tables and chairs, and you make $1 worth of tables in an hour and $.50 in chairs in an hour, while another guy makes $0.40 in chairs an hour and $0.25 worth of tables in an hour, normally you'd make an average amount of value between $1 and $.5, while the other guy would be making between $.40 and $.25. But if you can trade with each other, you can make entirely tables, while the other guy can make entirely chairs, and now you're both better off because you're creating $1 worth of value and the other guy is creating $.40 worth of value per hour. That's the super-simplified version of Free Trade Is Always Good. The thing about free trade being good is that it also makes certain domestic industries less competitive. Using the table/chair analogy and replacing people with companies, now the chair-makers in your company have gone out of business while the other guy's table-makers have also vanished. Redistributionist policies, job retraining, and other tools can be used to mitigate these problems. Unfortunately these tools are not perfect, and will lead to some level of bitterness anyways, and well, we haven't exactly been making good use of these tools. Basically, free trade can make everyone richer and better-off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Some countries also have comparative advantages in very few things, like - say - manpower. Caribbean states for instance are pressured into opening themselves up to the globalized free trade system, and end up suffering from brain drain because their educated population can earn better incomes abroad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:why did feingold do worse than hillary in wisconsin http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin Feingold got almost exactly the same number of votes as Clinton. The problem is that some people voted libertarian in the presidential race, and then voted republican in the senate race against Feingold. Bodyholes has issued a correction as of 23:17 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
So, free trade itself doesn't necessarily seem bad, but what's loving it over is that the profits and benefits are all going to the owners of the means of production, the elite, and none of it is going to the workers and the people who actually create the things. Meaning the bosses pocket the money and drive slaves. Awesome. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So, free trade itself doesn't necessarily seem bad, but what's loving it over is that the profits and benefits are all going to the owners of the means of production, the elite, and none of it is going to the workers and the people who actually create the things. Meaning the bosses pocket the money and drive slaves. And if that wasn't bad enough, it looks like there's another gigantic crash around the corner ready to ignite this shitshow like the trash heap it is
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So, free trade itself doesn't necessarily seem bad, but what's loving it over is that the profits and benefits are all going to the owners of the means of production, the elite, and none of it is going to the workers and the people who actually create the things. Meaning the bosses pocket the money and drive slaves. It's also worth noting that "free-trade deals" entail a lot more than just free trade. For instance, they may expand the power of courts where democratic governments can be sued by corporations for losses and "lost profits" caused by regulation. Think pollution controls, workplace safety, consumer protection and refusal of operating licenses due to local opposition, but also things like tariffs and confiscation of property. And they perpetuate their own laws and regulations. When politicians gush about free trade, they often have actual deals in mind, but they tend to leave out that part, which is what it's all about. http://www.citizen.org/investorcases features a couple of cases. Direct links to PDFs with lots of case summaries: http://www.citizen.org/documents/investor-state-chart.pdf http://www.citizen.org/documents/egregious-investor-state-attacks-case-studies.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
free trade making everyone richer is the same theory that trickle-down economics runs on on paper they look good and in practice they gently caress over everyone who isn't at the top
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
the classic free trade model also ignores that capital also moves under free trade agreements, so comparative advantage doesn't work as well, and it basically sets up a situation where countries are in a 'race to the bottom' to attract foreign investors. Basically, like all modern econ, it ignores power dynamics and the use of coercion as simply a thing that doesn't happen, when of course it does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:See this interview with Asher Edelman where he explains that average people need money to spend on what the factories make. It's poo poo like this that makes me dismiss so many "expert" economists. Jesus gently caress they really do live in a bubble. The entire panel just stares at him when he makes such an obvious statement. Pener Kropoopkin posted:There wouldn't be anything wrong with free trade, if the workers in the 1st & 3rd worlds owned the stakes in their enterprises instead of private interests. Or at least if the savings went toward significant wage increases across all low end jobs. punk rebel ecks has issued a correction as of 05:22 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Or at least if the savings went toward significant wage increases across all low end jobs. Well there's a reason that doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Well there's a reason that doesn't happen. Touche.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Incrementalism until the whole thing collapses and this happens: http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/breakingviews/1/260/316/Trump%20book%20v9docx.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
they also voted for a bunch of republicans who ran on right to work so idk man
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:they also voted for a bunch of republicans who ran on right to work so idk man Incumbent advantage for some congressional races can be pretty insane regardless of what specific polices he/she advocates
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
AHungryRobot posted:Incumbent advantage for some congressional races can be pretty insane regardless of what specific polices he/she advocates Ted Kennedy's years as a senator outnumbered his life prior to election, then the party lost his seat for a term after he died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:Ted Kennedy's years as a senator outnumbered his life prior to election, then the party lost his seat for a term after he died. Perhaps that is because the Democrats are dumb...and bad?  Remember who ran for that seat and how she "campaigned". In all seriousness the Democrats have thrown away as many winnable seats by running their loyalist and donor base as the GOP has thrown away by running Tea Party radicals, except that the Tea Party was a phase that has largely run its course while the Democrats still are stuck throwing people that are, at best, rubber stamps to the party agenda throughout as much of the country as possible. Trying to get people to vote for McGinty for Senate in PA (a completely winnable race) boiled down to me saying 'Without her the Democrats can't win the Senate and Washington will continue to be dysfunctional'. Little did I realize the Democrats would lose the whole thing!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:free trade making everyone richer is the same theory that trickle-down economics runs on it's interesting how all of this is the government bowing to laissez-faire capitalism as if it isn't an insane and discredited ideology
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's interesting how all of this is the government bowing to laissez-faire capitalism as if it isn't an insane and discredited ideology its extremely effective at achieving its goals
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:It's poo poo like this that makes me dismiss so many "expert" economists. Jesus gently caress they really do live in a bubble. The entire panel just stares at him when he makes such an obvious statement. "Regular people need money to spend on goods and services to drive the economy" --- GASP *DEER IN HEADLIGHTS LOOK* I don't know the people on the panel, if they are experts or not, but these shows are basically "entertainment" news at this point and their reaction is evidence of a much larger problem that you point out (The bubble)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Lactose Is Wack posted:"Regular people need money to spend on goods and services to drive the economy" --- GASP *DEER IN HEADLIGHTS LOOK* This is the thing though, this way of thinking portrays the entire field. Just read The Economist for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This is the thing though, this way of thinking portrays the entire field. Just read The Economist for example. I love the Economist, it's a well-written, well-sourced, generally technically correct newspaper that is nonetheless usually wrong due to ideological blinders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:I love the Economist, it's a well-written, well-sourced, generally technically correct newspaper that is nonetheless usually wrong due to ideological blinders. This is accurate. It usually has great sources. Is written very well. But what they take from the information they receive is comically insane. I remember an article praising Scandinavia. And they tried to press to the conclusion to the reason why Scandinavia is so successful is because it is actually even more pro-free market and anti-government then the United States and the rest of Europe. How did they hint to this conclusion? By cherry picking the gently caress out of specific industries in each country. This article is spot on 25 years later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So, can someone explain to me why free trade is a good thing? I keep hearing politicians harp on and on about it but it seems like something that's too abstract and disconnected to actually have much of an effect on people's lives. Why does everyone have such a boner for free trade? Free trade increases mutual benefit for those that trade. For instance ostensibly; if China and the US trade, both countries benefit because both countries will have more of certain goods then they can produce on their own. This activity increases economic activity as well as the size of the market which ostensibly should benefit a larger group of people than were benefitted before engaging in trade. So the more countries you trade with and the more you trade with them again supposedly, the better off those involved in the trading system will be. You correct for economic inefficiencies though, in order so that everyone living in these countries may benefit. The people who have a hard on for free trade usually forget about the last part. This leads to their actual method looking more like 'gently caress you, got mine'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 12:05
|
|