Free trade vs Fair trade

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm sorry, but as one of the workers, that second option sounds too much like "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Yeah, I don't trust that line, either.

I think RevDisk has the right of it, with saying match what the other countries are doing. So if they put out tariffs and such on our goods, we match it on their goods. That way the US maintains a mostly apolitical "free" trade stance without being abused by it.

[Ron]

Yeah, I don't trust that line, either.

I think RevDisk has the right of it, with saying match what the other countries are doing. So if they put out tariffs and such on our goods, we match it on their goods. That way the US maintains a mostly apolitical "free" trade stance without being abused by it.

Heh, who do you think would negotiate and enforce those tariffs? Yes, our government. So you, like fistful like fair trade policies over doctrinaire free trade.

[De Selby]

I don't support matching or any other fairness based approach.  Trade policy should benefit the voters - the outcome doesn't need to be "free flow of goods", it needs to be "better economic conditions for voters."

What we have is the opposite - no principles besides "if it benefits major financial institutions and corporations it will be pursued."  This is why IP enforcement is such a big part of those trade deals, it requires investment by nations who mostly don't care to protect corporate profits.

Currency manipulation is great for multinational profits, that's why it's allowed.  It's also why the US gave up regulating the worlds money.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I don't support matching or any other fairness based approach.  Trade policy should benefit the voters - the outcome doesn't need to be "free flow of goods", it needs to be "better economic conditions for voters."

What we have is the opposite - no principles besides "if it benefits major financial institutions and corporations it will be pursued."  This is why IP enforcement is such a big part of those trade deals, it requires investment by nations who mostly don't care to protect corporate profits.

Currency manipulation is great for multinational profits, that's why it's allowed.  It's also why the US gave up regulating the worlds money.

I think the idea here is that "free flow of goods" *IS* "better economic conditions for voters"

One reason I know so little on the topic and was hesitant to even offer an opinion is simply because, based on what I retain from Econ 101, it's a subject so heavily based on theory, rather than fact, that practical application of data gathered is almost impossible. It's one of those subjects where you observe and maybe make some conjecture based on observation, but the idea that you can use that information to always successfully manipulate the markets (especially on a global scale) is pretty false. Too much meddling messes it up, often in ways that have impacts for decades and impacts nobody could have predicted.

[De Selby]

I think the idea here is that "free flow of goods" *IS* "better economic conditions for voters"

One reason I know so little on the topic and was hesitant to even offer an opinion is simply because, based on what I retain from Econ 101, it's a subject so heavily based on theory, rather than fact, that practical application of data gathered is almost impossible. It's one of those subjects where you observe and maybe make some conjecture based on observation, but the idea that you can use that information to always successfully manipulate the markets (especially on a global scale) is pretty false. Too much meddling messes it up, often in ways that have impacts for decades and impacts nobody could have predicted.

And yet market policy for the past 20 years has been spectacularly successful at increasing the share of world GDP owned by the richest 1 percent of the population, while decreasing everyone else's share. 

It's almost as if free trade was supported by those moneyed interests for that reason.

There is an economic theory as to why free trade doesn't enrich people, and that's because money is extremely mobile in a way that people and their economic communities are not.  Someone with sufficient personal wealth can impoverish an entire country simply by moving accounts.  In contrast, the most powerful countries have great difficulty controlling what people do with extreme wealth.  It means that in the end, there's very little room to bargain absent some pretty strong regulation, and workers end up in a race to the bottom - money chases the cheapest wage.

[BlueStarLizzard]

And yet market policy for the past 20 years has been spectacularly successful at increasing the share of world GDP owned by the richest 1 percent of the population, while decreasing everyone else's share. 

It's almost as if free trade was supported by those moneyed interests for that reason.

There is an economic theory as to why free trade doesn't enrich people, and that's because money is extremely mobile in a way that people and their economic communities are not.  Someone with sufficient personal wealth can impoverish an entire country simply by moving accounts.  In contrast, the most powerful countries have great difficulty controlling what people do with extreme wealth.  It means that in the end, there's very little room to bargain absent some pretty strong regulation, and workers end up in a race to the bottom - money chases the cheapest wage.

Key point bolded. Yes, it is extremely mobile. It's also unpredictable and an economic lose in one area usually indicates an economic boom in another (and I'm pretty sure that some of the better educated on the subject could find examples of times when regulations to "save" one industry ended up stifling another)

I don't think you get what I'm saying. I don't think free trade is the perfect example of how it should be done because everyone wins!! I think (mostly) free trade is the only realistic answer to a *expletive deleted*it question.

Your fundamental issue (and this seems to be across all political subjects) is the delusion that all the worlds ills can be "fixed" if we DO something. The reality is that some things can't be fixed and many things are made worse by trying to DO something. Economics is something of an organic social construct, and by that I mean, it exist in a manner that we can maybe guide a *little* but we cannot control. Trying to control something that is uncontrollable is inevitably a disaster.

[Ron]

What you fail to acknowledge BSL is that our trade is managed and controlled already.

The folks who are controlling and managing our trade right now aren't looking out for the best interest of the USA but are looking to help maximize profits for multinational corporations and global banking institutions.


 

[BlueStarLizzard]

What you fail to acknowledge BSL is that our trade is managed and controlled already.

The folks who are controlling and managing our trade right now aren't looking out for the best interest of the USA but are looking to help maximize profits for multinational corporations and global banking institutions.


 

I am so mad that you actually think I am that stupid that I can't even articulate a response to this.

Seriously, where did I say that "They way things are currently managed is the perfect way, because that's free trade!!!!11!" because I'd really *expletive deleted*ing like to know?

[Scout26]

(and I'm pretty sure that some of the better educated on the subject could find examples of times when regulations to "save" one industry ended up stifling another)

For something like 70 years, Nabisco has made Oreo's in a plant here in Chicago (in fact a lot of candy/confectionery/bakery companies were based or had plants in Chicago), however a few months back they announced they were moving that production to Mexico.  Why you ask?   

Sugar.

Many years ago Congress enacted very high tariffs on imported sugar to protect the domestic sugar growers and refiners.   This has made the cost of sugar much higher then what it could and should be.   Many candy companies have either closed their doors, been bought out, and/or moved overseas to where they can pay much less for the one vital raw material for candy/confectionery/bakery production.  Nabisco finely hit the tipping point, where it is cheaper to outsource production, not because of lower labor costs, although that helped in shortening the time to the tipping point, but because they can source their materials for much less then what they are paying today.

If one goes back and looks at why production, jobs, and industry have moved overseas, often you will find it's the result of (un)intended consequences of clumsy, and heavy-handed government interference in the market. 

[KD5NRH]

I just don't have faith in any .Gov, my own included, to do a better job than the free market.

The only government I'd every really trust is an absolute dictatorship with either me or Jesus in charge.

I think He's still polling higher than I am, though the way the world's going, I'm not sure.

[Ron]

This is an interesting article about immigration. As I was reading about the elites views on the free movement of people (labor) I realized to a large extent the issue was similar to our discussion here about trade.

The immigration issue revolves around who belongs? The trade issue revolves around who should trade policies benefit? The elite have different ideas on both issues than the common Joe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/world/europe/a-central-conflict-of-21st-century-politics-who-belongs.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

[Perd Hapley]

Speaking of false dichotomies...

There is no free trade. It's a myth that does not exist in the natural world. All of these so called "free trade" deals are just choosing to let globalist bureaucrats who hate America dictate the conditions.

What's the false dichotomy (or any dichotomy) in what I said? I really just meant that I'm suspicious of any talk about helping "the workers."

As for "no free trade," that's like saying there's no free country, or no perfect church. Sure, but there are ideals one looks toward. They call them free trade agreements, just like every Democratic bill is a "reform." The bad guys always co-opt the best labels for their agendas, and we always go along with it.

[Ron]

What's the false dichotomy (or any dichotomy) in what I said? I really just meant that I'm suspicious of any talk about helping "the workers."

As for "no free trade," that's like saying there's no free country, or no perfect church. Sure, but there are ideals one looks toward. They call them free trade agreements, just like every Democratic bill is a "reform." The bad guys always co-opt the best labels for their agendas, and we always go along with it.

So you are kind of OK with managed trade according to an earlier post.

So if we are going to manage our trade, to whose benefit should our trade policies work toward? The bulk of America ie the middle class, multi-national corps, other nations, our elites?

Who has benefited most from our trade policies over the last couple/few decades?

Who has lost the most?

Like trained animals as soon as something is tagged "free trade" everyone stops thinking and goes along with whatever gets that branding, regardless of whether it deserves to be called free trade or the consequences of the policy.