Discussion World Forum

Discussion World Forum (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forums.php)
-   Economics (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   A Case for Free Trade (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/showthread.php?t=5904)

Tom Palven Oct 11th 2016 06:39 AM

A Case for Free Trade
 
Short and sweet:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamn.../#644607e2434e

dilettante Oct 11th 2016 08:57 AM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Palven (Post 98499)

Short? It's 3 pages long.

Also, it's a little painful to read. I consider myself vaguely "pro-free-trade", but even I have trouble taking seriously someone who is so blindly devoted to it as to declare that free trade is "unrelentingly spectacular – always." That's just silly.

Tamny begins his piece with this quote: "“What is harmful or disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation," and he claims it's truth is his inspiration.
But Tamny himself brings up examples of individual people for whom freer trade was harmful or disastrous (he mentions steel workers, though he could have gone with the auto industry or manufacturing, among others). Unprotected trade was disastrous for them, their families, and their towns. Does he stick to his quote and declare that, therefore, free trade must be harmful to the nation?

Nope, he completely contradicts himself and dismisses the individual suffering by appealing to the corporate benefits of the nation seen collectively. Which is EXACTLY what he so bitterly accuses the hated "Keyensians" of doing.

There are good arguments for free trade. But this sort of absolutist, self-contradictory, blindly devoted rhetoric isn't one of them.

Michael Oct 11th 2016 05:57 PM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dilettante (Post 98500)
Also, it's a little painful to read. I consider myself vaguely "pro-free-trade", but even I have trouble taking seriously someone who is so blindly devoted to it as to declare that free trade is "unrelentingly spectacular – always." That's just silly.

Indeed, when you see such a comment, you are not reading an argument or evaluation or analysis of any issue. You are reading the rant of an ideological true believer. Facts are rarely allowed to interfere with the purity of one's ideology.

Critiquing such essays is like shooting fish in a barrel. :lol:

Tom Palven Oct 24th 2016 11:25 AM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 98503)
Indeed, when you see such a comment, you are not reading an argument or evaluation or analysis of any issue. You are reading the rant of an ideological true believer. Facts are rarely allowed to interfere with the purity of one's ideology.

Critiquing such essays is like shooting fish in a barrel. :lol:

Sounds like you're in agreement with the genius Donald Trump with regard to free trade rather than the guy who wrote A Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

And I guess you prefer Pat Robertson's views on evolution as opposed to the views of the guy who wrote On the Origin of the Species among other books. :rofl:

Michael Oct 24th 2016 05:47 PM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Palven (Post 98616)
Sounds like you're in agreement with the genius Donald Trump with regard to free trade rather than the guy who wrote A Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

And I guess you prefer Pat Robertson's views on evolution as opposed to the views of the guy who wrote On the Origin of the Species among other books. :rofl:

Let's see if I understand the logic here.

1. I point out that the 'pro-free-trade' argument that was linked to is being made entirely on the basis of ideology without any actual facts to support it (and conveniently ignoring any facts that are troublesome to the theory).

2. Therefore I love Donald Trump and Pat Robertson, I'm a biblical creationist and I'm opposed to Darwin as well as Smith.

Is that correct? Is that how you actually see it? :ummm:

Btw, actual evolutionary theory is not identical to Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is over 150 years old and rather out of date. Insisting that "evolutionary theory = Darwin" is something only biblical creationists do.

Tom Palven Oct 25th 2016 01:41 AM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 98619)
Let's see if I understand the logic here.

1. I point out that the 'pro-free-trade' argument that was linked to is being made entirely on the basis of ideology without any actual facts to support it (and conveniently ignoring any facts that are troublesome to the theory).

2. Therefore I love Donald Trump and Pat Robertson, I'm a biblical creationist and I'm opposed to Darwin as well as Smith.

Is that correct? Is that how you actually see it? :ummm:

Btw, actual evolutionary theory is not identical to Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is over 150 years old and rather out of date. Insisting that "evolutionary theory = Darwin" is something only biblical creationists do.

Yes, and you are also a strict constructionist regarding the original Constitution and think that only while males should be allowed to vote.

On a more serious note, give me some FACTS as to how restraint of trade can be beneficial to anyone but certain special interests at the expense of the many.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...=0&FORM=VDQVAP

Tom Palven Oct 25th 2016 02:12 AM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dilettante (Post 98500)
Short? It's 3 pages long.

Well, it's a hellavalot shorter than An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Usually just called The Wealth of Nations).

That book, published in 1776, arguably was partially responsible for the Industrial Revolution, and led British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli to state in 1846 "protection is not only dead, but damned."

However, protectionism is alive and well today, and Donald Trump is one of its leading advocates.

Tom Palven Dec 3rd 2016 02:41 AM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
This article by Jacob Hornberger explains why "free trade agreements" like NAFTA are not necessarily about freeing up trade, but can be about government-controlled trade, which is the opposite of free trade:
http://www.fff.org/2013/08/07/unilat...de-agreements/

I personally don't know enough about NAFTA or the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership deal to know if either of them are more about removing barriers to trade creating more free trade, or advocate less free trade by protecting the US pharmaceutical industry, military industries, entertainment industry, and so on.

I'm going to try to learn more and would appreciate any comments and references.

Michael Dec 5th 2016 07:01 PM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Palven (Post 99078)
This article by Jacob Hornberger explains why "free trade agreements" like NAFTA are not necessarily about freeing up trade, but can be about government-controlled trade, which is the opposite of free trade:

Government controlled trade is more like the TPP (see IP tribunals), not NAFTA.

NAFTA is not about government controlled trade. I defy someone to provide some illustration/proof/argument to show that it was.

NAFTA is simply a free trade agreement with a relatively level playing field established between Canada, US and Mexico. Canadian and Mexican workers & companies have benefitted enormously. In the USA, US corporations have benefitted enormously. Only real loser was US manufacturing workers, though, they were far more victims of their corporate employers rather than cut-throat competition from Canada & Mexico, or any provision of NAFTA.

Canadian exports have increased their market share in the US in a whole slew of categories. And yet Canada has higher wages, higher taxes and higher labor/safety/environmental regulations than the US. Large parts of the US economy just are not very competitive for whatever reasons.

Indeed, every study I've seen shows that Canada/Mexico have not drained away any substantive number of US manufacturing jobs - China got all the jobs (compliments of US corporations). US corporations have gutted the US working class. NAFTA is just a red herring thrown at the plebes.

Tom Palven Jan 25th 2017 07:32 AM

Re: A Case for Free Trade
 
"Free trade" vs. free trade.
https://mises.org/blog/free-trade-versus-free-trade

Imho the above article is spot-on.

Unfortunately, so far it seems that Trump takes a strong political view of "free trade" which will be detrimental to all but certain special interests.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com