Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Economics

Economics The economy, taxes, Federal Reserve, Central Banks, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, stock markets, currency, GDP, NAFTA, IMF, WTO, GATT, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old Oct 11th 2016, 06:39 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default A Case for Free Trade

Short and sweet:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamn.../#644607e2434e
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Oct 11th 2016, 08:57 AM
dilettante's Avatar
dilettante dilettante is offline
Moderator
Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,082
Default Re: A Case for Free Trade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
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.
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Oct 11th 2016, 05:57 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: A Case for Free Trade

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
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.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Oct 24th 2016, 11:25 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: A Case for Free Trade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Oct 24th 2016, 05:47 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: A Case for Free Trade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
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.
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?

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.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Oct 25th 2016, 01:41 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: A Case for Free Trade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
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?

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
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center

Last edited by Tom Palven; Oct 25th 2016 at 01:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Oct 25th 2016, 02:12 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: A Case for Free Trade

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
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.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Dec 3rd 2016, 02:41 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default 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.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Dec 5th 2016, 07:01 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: A Case for Free Trade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
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.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jan 25th 2017, 07:32 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default 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.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com