Free Trade

[Vlerchan]

As I read more and more into it I'm finding the argument for free trade more and more appealing. I've come to the opinion that protectionism is only beneficial in the most exceptional circumstances.

So could someone remind me of what the argument against free-trade actually is?

[Miserabilia]

I have no idea; I could see how protectionism would be used to substain a planned economy, but in the end I don't actualy think it'd be helpful.

[Stronk Serb]

Protectionism shpuld be used to protect the local market from destructive foreign competition.

[Vlerchan]

Protectionism shpuld be used to protect the local market from destructive foreign competition.
This isn't an argument. This is a statement.

If goods can be produced more efficiently elsewhere then why is that a bad thing?

[phuckphace]

http://i.imgur.com/OVMfb2k.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt

workers who produce things, what a weird time that was. anyway free trade is awesome, yo

http://i.imgur.com/vU25pF7.jpg

thankfully she had NAFTA to keep that shopping trip under triple digits. "I'm so glad I don't have to spend $50,000 at the grocery store every week like we used to do before Reagan, that was insane," she says. you're telling me, ma'am.

[Stronk Serb]

This isn't an argument. This is a statement.

If goods can be produced more efficiently elsewhere then why is that a bad thing?

I wouldn't pursue free trade for some/all goods if it was bad for the local economy (on a national level). In Serbia's case we should revive the domestic industry and protect the local market from foreigners in order to boost our economy.

[phuckphace]

I wouldn't pursue free trade for some/all goods if it was bad for the local economy (on a national level). In Serbia's case we should revive the domestic industry and protect the local market from foreigners in order to boost our economy.

a free-trader would respond with "protectionism undermines competitiveness blah blah blah" which is to say it costs a little more to get a result that is more beneficial to the working class. capitalists don't have those kinds of paltry concerns so of course free trade "makes sense" to them - they have everything to gain and nothing to lose so long as the proletariat flips enough burgers and doesn't ask for too many raises.

[Vlerchan]

I wouldn't pursue free trade for some/all goods if it was bad for the local economy (on a national level).
You'll have to explain what "bad for the local economy (on a national level)" means. Be specific please.

In Serbia's case we should revive the domestic industry and protect the local market from foreigners in order to boost our economy.
If firms in these industries then became competitive at a global level would you favour dropping tariffs (etc.)?

I think you're just setting yourself up for expensive problems though.

---

workers who produce things, what a weird time that was. anyway free trade is awesome, yo
I can't help it that American workers became more productive - see (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OUTMS).

It's interesting though that our decline in manufacturing jobs came after deindustrialisation in the North. It's almost like it was going to happen anyway or something.

a free-trader would respond with "protectionism undermines competitiveness blah blah blah" which is to say it costs a little more to get a result that is more beneficial to the working class.

"little more":

Many estimates have been made of the cost of “saving jobs” by protectionism. While the estimates differ widely across industries, they are almost always much larger than the wages of the protected workers. For example, one study in the early 1990s estimated that U.S. consumers paid $1,285,000 annually for each job in the luggage industry that was preserved by barriers to imports, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a luggage worker. That same study estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $199,000 annually for each textile worker’s job that was saved, $1,044,000 for each softwood lumber job saved, and $1,376,000 for every job saved in the benzenoid chemical industry. Yes, $1,376,000 a year!

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeTrade.html

It's also businesses who are benefiting most from this at the expense of (working class) consumers who a lot of the time see their shopping bills rise - especially when governments let the inefficient production of goods up-for derived demand (i.e., demanded for their contribution to the production process) continue. It just doesn't make sense to me to make consumers pay such massive amounts as cited above to protect jobs that pay a fraction.

The costs of protectionism to consumers are enormous. According to very conservative estimates, protectionism costs American consumers over $60 billion per year—more than $1,000 annually for a family of four.

http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-political-economy-of-protectionism

Tell me you don't have most of this stuff (http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-tariffs-2010-9?op=1&IR=T) in your house.

Beside that in a lot of cases protecting certain jobs destroys others.

The agreement placed on steel in 1984 saved 16,900 jobs in the steel industry but destroyed 52,400 jobs in industries that use steel.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228259895_The_Philosophy_of_Trade_Protectionism_Its_Costs_and_Its_Implications

I'll admit that steel is an extreme case because it's in such high demand in other sectors but I'd imagine you get the picture.

capitalists don't have those kinds of paltry concerns so of course free trade "makes sense" to them
Isn't it funny how I didn't use the word "competitiveness" or "growth" in the above once though?

they have everything to gain and nothing to lose so long as the proletariat flips enough burgers and doesn't ask for too many raises.
I think the lack of "high wage" jobs being created has more to do with technological advancements (http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/) than anything else. I agree this is a problem - that I've no clue how to solve.

And productivity is linked to real compensation for workers (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/krozner20060927chart1.gif) so creating more productive workers isn't a bad thing. I'm aware that's not true when we just consider wages - but then I fully support transitioning away from employer-funded healthcare schemes (etc.) to a single-payer system which should deflate the differences.

[soundtrack] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=givRh52Ic3A)

[phuckphace]

most of that was too deep for me but basically what I took away was "Ted Kaczynski did nothing wrong." national paleosocialism, I like it!

[Kahn]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

[phuckphace]

anmlPvmd1Ew

I like how he smoothly throws the MIC and American neo-colonialism in with "the welfare state," by which he means the safety net. if he were a more reasonable guy he'd view former Northrop Grumman employees turned politicians awarding government contracts to their former employer with far more concern than, say, a public service that feeds people below the poverty line. but then again this is the King of Glibertarians we're dealing with here, all these elections since 1988 and not one victory... :(

[Kahn]

I like how he smoothly throws the MIC and American neo-colonialism in with "the welfare state," by which he means the safety net. if he were a more reasonable guy he'd view former Northrop Grumman employees turned politicians awarding government contracts to their former employer with far more concern than, say, a public service that feeds people below the poverty line. but then again this is the King of Glibertarians we're dealing with here, all these elections since 1988 and not one victory... :(

I disagree with his health care ideals, but for the most part I agree with the things he said in this interview.

By posting the video and not commenting, I wasn't trying to imply that his ideas are infallible and should go without criticism.

[Vlerchan]

Ron Paul said he'd support "import taxation" in that video. That's just a fancy word for tariffs. Do you support "import taxation" then?

I also disagreed with almost every single point he made.

[Kahn]

Ron Paul said he'd support "import taxation" in that video. That's just a fancy word for tariffs. Do you support "import taxation" then?

No.

I also disagreed with almost every single point he made.

That's nice.

[Vlerchan]

That's nice.
If you want you can create a thread outlining the views of his that you agree with and I can run through them.

I'm not going to derail my thread here to do it though.

[Kahn]

If you want you can create a thread outlining the views of his that you agree with and I can run through them.

I'm not going to derail my thread here to do it though.

Perhaps later.

[Plane And Simple]

I see tension building up slowly here. Take this as a reminder to keep it peaceful and respectful folks.