Do you support free trade?

[Joey]

Trade advances human society and has brought more opportunities to the poor and rich than anything else. It is indisputably good for individuals. Isn't it the same on the national level?

Look up the article "Free trade" on the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

Which part of that article is wrong?

[McCroskey]

has brought more opportunities to the poor

This is simply not true. Free trade flow is based on private profit, not human neeeds.

Please tell me when in the history of free trade has a corporate decision been made on the basis on the population´s needs and not on the basis of increasing private profit.

Thanks

[McCroskey]

It is indisputably good for individuals.

That is almost true. It is indisputably good for CERTAIN individuals.

[Joey]

This is simply not true. Free trade flow is based on private profit, not human neeeds.

Please tell me when in the history of free trade has a corporate decision been made on the basis on the population´s needs and not on the basis of increasing private profit.

Thanks

What's good for a corporation's bottom line is often what's good for its employees, who get job opportunities they otherwise would not have. Regardless, it's not about the intention, it's about the outcome. And overall living standards have improved everywhere free trade has been introduced.


That is almost true. It is indisputably good for CERTAIN individuals.

For whom is it bad? We trade with others to buy goods and get services that we otherwise would have to make or perform all on our own. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

[Atlee]

I am more into fair trade, but this too is a hard-to-gauge because we don't want to exploit yet don't want to get ripped off. I have always wondered what would happen if we have a one world currency making things clearer to the public.

[McCroskey]

What's good for a corporation's bottom line is often what's good for its employees, who get job opportunities they otherwise would not have. Regardless, it's not about the intention, it's about the outcome. And overall living standards have improved everywhere free trade has been introduced.



For whom is it bad? We trade with others to buy goods and get services that we otherwise would have to make or perform all on our own. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

My apologies, where I should have read "Free trade", I read "Free market".

[McCroskey]

What's good for a corporation's bottom line is often what's good for its employees, who get job opportunities they otherwise would not have.

Still, these job opportunities, if we are talking about corporations, are limited. To put it simple, it´s not based on "how can we distribute the workload among all the people that will benefit from it", it´s based on "how can we produce the same amount of product with the minimum staff involved".

[Joey]

Still, these job opportunities, if we are talking about corporations, are limited. To put it simple, it´s not based on "how can we distribute the workload among all the people that will benefit from it", it´s based on "how can we produce the same amount of product with the minimum staff involved".

They have to be limited, since if you force a company to employ everyone who wants a job, it would increase costs to the point that wages would have to be drastically decreased or prices drastically increased. It's true that profit is the overriding motive, but that means there are going to be a jobs for a fair amount of people (and the more competition created by free trade, the more job opportunities) and prices will be low.

[Stephen Colbert]

Trade advances human society and has brought more opportunities to the poor and rich than anything else. It is indisputably good for individuals. Isn't it the same on the national level?

Look up the article "Free trade" on the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

Which part of that article is wrong?

Free trade doesn't exist. When the government is in bed with neo-liberal interest making markets and sales round the world at gunpoint and paramilitary action, meanwhile using heavy subsidies and protectionism for the fledgling business-- its the "free market".

Also, ever heard of NAFTA? Wonder why unemployment is at 10% hard? NAFTA has most if not all manufacturing jobs in Mexico. Just because labor is cheaper overseas doesn't mean it will positively benefit America, especially the working class who always feels the negative impact of semi-retarded economic decisions.

Hecho in Mexico.

[NGNM85]

Free Markets have been largely purely theoretical. Every attempt to manifest this idea in the real world has been a complete disaster. Given the history of the idea it's a wonder people can even suggest it.

[Joey]

Free trade doesn't exist. When the government is in bed with neo-liberal interest making markets and sales round the world at gunpoint and paramilitary action, meanwhile using heavy subsidies and protectionism for the fledgling business-- its the "free market".

Also, ever heard of NAFTA? Wonder why unemployment is at 10% hard? NAFTA has most if not all manufacturing jobs in Mexico. Just because labor is cheaper overseas doesn't mean it will positively benefit America, especially the working class who always feels the negative impact of semi-retarded economic decisions.

Hecho in Mexico.

Please provide evidence that all the "neo-liberal interest" sales around the world are being made at gunpoint and paramilitary action. Also, subsidization and protectionism are NOT true capitalism. In fact protectionism is the antithesis of free markets.

While there are some losers in America with NAFTA, the average consumer is helped by the decreased prices of goods. Increased unemployment is more a consequence of increased automation, increased worker productivity, and obviously a recession which NAFTA did not cause.

Also, why should we care more about the average American worker than the average Mexican worker? After all, the latter tends to be poorer than the former. I thought leftists were against distinctions made on nationality.

[Joey]

Free Markets have been largely purely theoretical. Every attempt to manifest this idea in the real world has been a complete disaster. Given the history of the idea it's a wonder people can even suggest it.

That seems more than a little hyperbolic. Ever since the industrial revolution, living standards, median income, infant mortality, malnutrition, health, technological innovation, and just about every other measure of human welfare you can think of has improved drastically. Are you saying free markets had nothing to do with this?

[MarxSchmarx]

Come one, come all, for this dog and pony show.

The cappies get us to buy into the principle of "comparative advantage". Nobody disagrees with this principle of speculative philosophy.

Now let's put aside the myriad of problems
http://faculty.washington.edu/danby/bls324/trade/ricardo.html
associated with this theory.

But then they choose to use it to coattail all their gibberish about "free trade", which is code for crushing the skulls of working people in Papua New Guinea cause we can't do it in the grand old US of A.

I don't give two hoots about what the imperialist class calls "free" trade.

Yessir, line up right there for your snake oil.

[Joey]

Come one, come all, for this dog and pony show.

The cappies get us to buy into the principle of "comparative advantage". Nobody disagrees with that, in fact since the time of Owen if not earlier socialists have been advocating it.

But then they choose to use it to coattail all their gibberish about "free trade", which is code for crushing the skulls of working people in Papua New Guinea cause we can't do it in the grand old US of A.

I don't give two hoots about what the imperialist class calls "free" trade.

Yessir, line up right there for your snake oil.

Notwithstanding the conspiracy theories, it's funny that you speak of the USA. We have free trade among all 50 states of our country. In fact, it's codified in the Constitution. Would you say this has been a mechanism to crush the skulls of workers, or to bring about unprecedented economic prosperity?

[NGNM85]

That seems more than a little hyperbolic. Ever since the industrial revolution, living standards, median income, infant mortality, malnutrition, health, technological innovation, and just about every other measure of human welfare you can think of has improved drastically. Are you saying free markets had nothing to do with this?

These weren't acheived through 'Free Markets', but through mixed economies. In fact, economic regulation and protectionism generally correlates with general prosparity. Deregulation generally inevitably produces greater income inequality, increasing poverty, etc.

If you want some good in-depth analysis of the phenomenon I recommend Bad Samaritans by Ha-Joon Chang, The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, and Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky.

[Atlee]

Free trade doesn't exist. When the government is in bed with neo-liberal interest making markets and sales round the world at gunpoint and paramilitary action, meanwhile using heavy subsidies and protectionism for the fledgling business-- its the "free market".

Also, ever heard of NAFTA? Wonder why unemployment is at 10% hard? NAFTA has most if not all manufacturing jobs in Mexico. Just because labor is cheaper overseas doesn't mean it will positively benefit America, especially the working class who always feels the negative impact of semi-retarded economic decisions.

Hecho in Mexico.

I remember when all that NAFTA stuff was going around, I was walking the strike line with my Brothers and Sisters at GCIU Local 8m. We pretty much agreed that in order for such a thing to work as fair trade that we would have to bring up their standard in laws and income and unify the currency.

We see that NAFTA was a total failure as predicted and minimum wage in Mexico is $4.50 per day compared to the USA with nearly a $7.00+ (in some states) per hour. We do not have to look far to see why there is socioeconomic troubles on both sides.

[Atlee]

These weren't acheived through 'Free Markets', but through mixed economies. In fact, economic regulation and protectionism generally correlates with general prosparity. Deregulation generally inevitably produces greater income inequality, increasing poverty, etc.

In some circles the idea of mix economy is associated with Third Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)) positions that some tendencies use pejorative terms for i.e. "social democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)". This in the USA often refers to members of SDUSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDUSA) and DSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America) who were are are or can aim to be members of the Socialist International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International). Harder Leftist elements call for a "fundamental change" which is to sweep away all those groups and ideas.

[Atlee]

Notwithstanding the conspiracy theories, it's funny that you speak of the USA. We have free trade among all 50 states of our country. In fact, it's codified in the Constitution. Would you say this has been a mechanism to crush the skulls of workers, or to bring about unprecedented economic prosperity?

The Commerce Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) is not Iron Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law) in general. If something is made in a state and remains within that state and has no interstate components the the U.S. Constitution does not apply, BUT the State Constitution and laws will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUd8XA-5HEk&feature=player_embedded#!

[Blackscare]

And overall living standards have improved everywhere free trade has been introduced.


Except the former Soviet Union, numerous south american countries (where US companies operate like Coke that kill people in unions), Caribbean islands (seriously, contrast average standard of living in Cuba with, say, haiti or jamaica), south asia, or africa, right?

So it's benefited us on the good end of the stick. All we have to do is pretend it's like that everywhere. I doubt you have any evidence to support your claim that everyone benefits from free trade. I think you're just assuming it. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of increased prosperity for all.

[RGacky3]

Using that living stardards argument you could argue that everything raises living starndards, you could argue that the roman empire raised living standards, but that does'nt prove that it would'nt be better for everyone a different way.

[Left-Reasoning]

“Free Market Capitalism” is an oxymoron.

[Skooma Addict]

How?

[Adil3tr]

Because the free market self destructs quickly through the creation of monopolies. But now the free market means those monsters can take over the entire world unimpeded

[Atlee]

How?

The word "free" counteracts the word "market", in the expression, "There is no free lunch" we can understand there is nothing for free. The question becomes then, if, where did the food come from and at what cost and then to, who is supplying it at what cost for what reason? That is the market in a nutshell.

[Atlee]

Because the free market self destructs quickly through the creation of monopolies. But now the free market means those monsters can take over the entire world unimpeded

In many countries this is true and it is the problem we face with multi-national companies. On the other hand, here in the USA we have anti-trust laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law) that protect us from the days of old monopolies i.e. the railroads and big oil. It now seems that more and more that the jobs and wages are leaving because capitalists are trying to bleed the workers from a thousand cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_thousand_cuts).

[MarxSchmarx]

Notwithstanding the conspiracy theories, it's funny that you speak of the USA. We have free trade among all 50 states of our country. In fact, it's codified in the Constitution. Would you say this has been a mechanism to crush the skulls of workers, or to bring about unprecedented economic prosperity?

Oh dear, where to start. The short answer is neither.

See, here is how this argument works. There is a kernel of truth in what you are saying - in fact, we agree that a united world, without artificial barriers like nation states, is desirable. But the validity of the free traders argument stops there.

First of all, in America the constitution only allows the federal government to regulate trade between the states - it is a matter of policy that they choose to fight against states enacting protectionist barriers.

Second of all, the comparative advantage of the different states are artificially affected by different taxes and regulations, rather than resources (unless you view workers as a renewable resource). And very often companies do move to states with more oppressive PL and labor laws for example, which has created something of a race to the bottom in certain industries like loan sharking and toxic chemical manufacturing.

Third, NO country has ever attained the "unprecedented prosperity" you speak of without being protectionist in the extreme. Only when they attained considerable levels of development did they start liberalizing their economies, and insisting everyone else do so. Every underdeveloped country that opened its markets has been mired in debt and poverty ever since.

Fourth, it is not free trade without the free movement of people too. So if people can emigrate out of places with rampant corruption and oppressive labor laws to favorable places as well (like they can within the USA or Western Europe sans UK), we might actually be more inclined to support free trade policies as reforms in the right direction.

Except, the fact that this is exclusively ruled out, that "free trade" is really just euphemism for favorable trade for the capitalist-imperialist class, that corporations and capital can move around at will but workers can't, just shows how hypocritical advocates of contemporary free trade are.

[syndicat]

We have free trade among all 50 states of our country. In fact, it's codified in the Constitution. Would you say this has been a mechanism to crush the skulls of workers, or to bring about unprecedented economic prosperity? Notwithstanding the conspiracy theories, it's funny that you speak of the USA. We have free trade among all 50 states of our country. In fact, it's codified in the Constitution. Would you say this has been a mechanism to crush the skulls of workers, or to bring about unprecedented economic prosperity? Today 06:46Notwithstanding the conspiracy theories, it's funny that you speak of the USA. We have free trade among all 50 states of our country. In fact, it's codified in the Constitution. Would you say this has been a mechanism to crush the skulls of workers, or to bring about unprecedented economic prosperity? Today 06:46

the "free market" is not mentioned in the Constitution. It does't say anything about what economy we will have. And the corporations have worked persistently since the late 1800s to deskill jobs and reduce skill requirements. They do this by redesigning jobs. They do this because skills give workers leverage that makes it easier for them to make demands. Reducing skill requirements of jobs is a way to increase management power. Also, when they require fewer special skills they can lower the wage rate. this is a part of Taylorism which has been a standard corporate practice since the '20s. it violates the freedom of workers because furthering development of a person's potential is needed for them to be better able to control their life and participate effectively in governance of society and industry. but the capitalists don't want control of industry and society in their own hands.


While there are some losers in America with NAFTA, the average consumer is helped by the decreased prices of goods. Increased unemployment is more a consequence of increased automation, increased worker productivity, and obviously a recession which NAFTA did not cause.


the problem with the "comparative advantage" argument is that it fails to consider benefits and costs not reflected in market prices. for example the old corn economy in Mexico, supported by things like common land in the ejidos, won by peasants in the Mexican revolution, created valuable social stability. The government of Mexico bought the corn at subsidized prices and turned it into tortillas and sold these at subsidized prices. with NAFTA this was all destroyed. 2 million pesant farmers were forced off the land, into shantytowns around cities, into the factories along the border or forced to cross the border into the USA. also, about 700,000 other jobs were lost due to NAFTA in Mexico as well. with a massively increased desperate population, the wage rate dropped from 15 percent of the US rate to 12 percent of the US rate. Mexico's labor law scheme was modeled on Mussolini's Italy, and the government and private thugs routinely use violence to crush unionization.

the corn farmers were forced off the land because big American conglomerates like ADM and Cargill dumped corn in Mexico below the cost of production. They could do that due to the subsidies they receive in the USA. what then happened is that the price of tortillas in Mexico went way up...contrary to your argument about how consumers supposedly benefit. and the argument about consumers benefitting from low prices ignores the fact that most "consumers" are also workers. the "free trade" pacts have brought declining wages not only in Mexico but in the USA as well.

[ContrarianLemming]

Trade advances human society and has brought more opportunities to the poor and rich than anything else. It is indisputably good for individuals. Isn't it the same on the national level?


not a single communist disagrees. moot point.

[RGacky3]

How?

Its easy, just redefine all the words.

[Dean]

How?
For once, I agree with you! :)

[Skooma Addict]

Because the free market self destructs quickly through the creation of monopolies. But now the free market means those monsters can take over the entire world unimpeded

Monopolization is very rare as long as the government does not get involved. Most markets today are not monopolized.


The word "free" counteracts the word "market", in the expression, "There is no free lunch" we can understand there is nothing for free. The question becomes then, if, where did the food come from and at what cost and then to, who is supplying it at what cost for what reason? That is the market in a nutshell.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A "free market" does not describe a market where all goods and services are free if that is what you are talking about.

[RGacky3]

Monopolization is very rare as long as the government does not get involved. Most markets today are not monopolized.

You have no evidence of that, because if we ever point to when relatively free markets were monopolized (before anti-trust laws), you'll just say "Well there was some government regulation." And consider that an argument, so really all you got is blind faith in the markets. Most markets today are not monopolized because of anti-trust laws, but most markets are ologarchies, which is pretty much the same thing.


The word "free" counteracts the word "market", in the expression, "There is no free lunch" we can understand there is nothing for free. The question becomes then, if, where did the food come from and at what cost and then to, who is supplying it at what cost for what reason? That is the market in a nutshell.

I gotta agree with skooma here. Free Market is a contradiction, but not at all in the way your talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

Monopolization is very rare as long as the government does not get involved. Most markets today are not monopolized.


I tend to disagree there. Most markets are controled by a few large companies--it is very difficult to break into them and be successful. Now if you can find a way--you can do pretty well.

[Atlee]

Monopolization is very rare as long as the government does not get involved. Most markets today are not monopolized.

I beg to differ and here is a (1 of 6) video to help explain the basics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw6_l9Dt720



This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A "free market" does not describe a market where all goods and services are free if that is what you are talking about.

Try 180 degrees in the other direction that in market place nothing can ever be free. Does this now make sense?

[bailey_187]

Within capitalism, free trade is better than individual isolated autarkic economies. However, for underdeveloped economies, protectionism can be good for industrialistion.

[Skooma Addict]

You have no evidence of that, because if we ever point to when relatively free markets were monopolized (before anti-trust laws), you'll just say "Well there was some government regulation." And consider that an argument, so really all you got is blind faith in the markets. Most markets today are not monopolized because of anti-trust laws, but most markets are ologarchies, which is pretty much the same thing.
Most markets are somewhere between oligopoly and perfect competition. Government is the main reason for such concentration, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. But it is possible for oligopoly and monopoly to arise without government intervention. I won't deny that. The circumstances just need to be right.


I tend to disagree there. Most markets are controled by a few large companies--it is very difficult to break into them and be successful. Now if you can find a way--you can do pretty well. You have to look at each market on a case by case basis and determine why some markets are controlled by a few large companies. Banking for example is clearly as centralized as it is due to the government. Also, such centralization is not always bad. A few large firms can theoretically be more efficient than many small firms depending on the market.


Try 180 degrees in the other direction that in market place nothing can ever be free. Does this now make sense? This isn't what people mean by "free market" though.

[Kayser_Soso]

You can't actually have free trade because without the intervention of governments, private corporations would have to control port facilities and infrastructure elements, and they would operate these facilities with the profit motive in mind. Take a look at any "Free Trade Zone" or EPZ- they exist and are profitable because the governments of these countries offer tax holidays and what not.

[Atlee]

This isn't what people mean by "free market" though.

A great non-explanation to avoid any real answer. :laugh:

[bailey_187]

A great non-explanation to avoid any real answer. :laugh:

this is embaressing. i hope you are trolling.

[Atlee]

this is embaressing. i hope you are trolling.

I am not "trolling" and I do not play games. I have been at the revolutionary front for nearly 30 years now.

[Dean]

Most markets are somewhere between oligopoly and perfect competition. Government is the main reason for such concentration, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. But it is possible for oligopoly and monopoly to arise without government intervention. I won't deny that. The circumstances just need to be right.

You have to look at each market on a case by case basis and determine why some markets are controlled by a few large companies. Banking for example is clearly as centralized as it is due to the government. Also, such centralization is not always bad. A few large firms can theoretically be more efficient than many small firms depending on the market.
The major flaw in your reasoning is that you don't have a framework for deciding where to blame "the government" and where to blame market forces. Your milieu like to take any positive or efficient model and develop a framework for crediting the market for its acquisition. For instance, you would say that any given increase in wages is first and foremost an act of market forces. But when wages go down, or unemployment rises, you seek any kind of way to blame "external forces" or otherwise any kind of system view as social, democratic or state-managed.

What you fail to realize is that market forces are just as applicable to political and social systems. They all work the same way:

-A particular group (almost always a minority) owns a controlling share of the capital. This can be any kind of capital: political, military, production or financial.
-That same group utilizes this controlling share to posture its own investments, influence other significant power brokers or otherwise manipulate market conditions to further their own interests.

In fact, across every significant power arrangement, you will find a completely collusionary culture. This is why Pakistan is both engaged in a war with the Taliban, and is almost certainly harboring senior members of the group. This is only one of the most obvious examples. Other examples include the Mexican Army's lopsided US-funded campaign against the Zetas, when the Mexican military has been cited as a responsible party in drug smuggling into the US. The same is true, probably much more explicitly, of the Colombian conflict.

You simply can't disassociate these phenomena from market forces in an attempt to provide a favorable view of the latter. There's good reason why the Bilderberg group and the ballooning derivatives market are seldom discussed in western media, or why the Pal-Israeli conflict is so lopsided in its reporting, or why Texas drug cartel influence is under reported, but AZ's childish legislative games are all the rage in the national media. Its due to a range of very deliberate campaigns by these empowered parties to frame the market - in this case, the market of ideas as it is manifested in media - towards a favorable orientation.

Your sense of "perfect competition" is simply laughable. As soon as one party achieves dominance over another, be it via efficiency, force or other market manipulation, it rearranges the rules so that they don't have to compete to stay there. Competition is anathema to the end-result of competitive markets. It's just like feudalism - conceivably, feudal lords would have to court the loyalty of peasants and nobility. But we both know that summarily, the actual arrangement served the interests of the lords primarily.

So, too, do all power structures beget more consolidation of power. In fact, the US free market system has beget one of the highest, if not the highest level of income inequality in the industrialized world.

There wont be any perfect competition, and the capitalist class will continue to use the government to fulfill their interests. Furthermore, government activity committed at the behest of market interests is market activity. You don't even believe in anarchy anymore, so you can't use the excuse of "if there were no government...". With your edifice, we know there will be one.


You've the same problem another member here has: its easy for you to describe a completely theoretical arrangement and explain how it will have favorable results. But there isn't any indication as to how "free market forces" would actually beget the arrangement in the first place, and there isn't any good example of "wholesome" competition that doesn't result in collusion with prevalent power structures. There's no reason to think that lopsided competition will peter out to become more even-handed (and "perfect," or not prone to collusion between power structures). You want to use the "holy grail" of competition to disprove the consolidation of power that has occurred in the aging of every power system. It's ridiculous.

[Skooma Addict]

The major flaw in your reasoning is that you don't have a framework for deciding where to blame "the government" and where to blame market forces.Umm....yes I do. You have to look at each market on a case by case basis.


Your milieu like to take any positive or efficient model and develop a framework for crediting the market for its acquisition. For instance, you would say that any given increase in wages is first and foremost an act of market forces. But when wages go down, or unemployment rises, you seek any kind of way to blame "external forces" or otherwise any kind of system view as social, democratic or state-managed.This is a strawman. Wages can go down because of the market...and that is a good thing. The government can also artificially raise some peoples wages.


Your sense of "perfect competition" is simply laughable. As soon as one party achieves dominance over another, be it via efficiency, force or other market manipulation, it rearranges the rules so that they don't have to compete to stay there. Competition is anathema to the end-result of competitive markets. It's just like feudalism - conceivably, feudal lords would have to court the loyalty of peasants and nobility. But we both know that summarily, the actual arrangement served the interests of the lords primarily.Your first claim is blatantly false. If it were true, then new companies would never have risen to out compete industry pioneers. Yet this has happened many times.


There wont be any perfect competition, and the capitalist class will continue to use the government to fulfill their interests. Furthermore, government activity committed at the behest of market interests is market activity. You don't even believe in anarchy anymore, so you can't use the excuse of "if there were no government...". With your edifice, we know there will be one.I never claimed there would be perfect competition, as it is a theoretical concept which has rarely existed. The bold portion of your quote is meaningless to me and it is just you attempting to blame everything on markets by twisting words.

[Dean]

Your first claim is blatantly false. If it were true, then new companies would never have risen to out compete industry pioneers. Yet this has happened many times.
Classic Skooma - provide 1 part clear argument with 4 parts obfuscation and retreat.

Here you claim that my point that power structures beget self-empowerment because "power structures rise and out-compete others." I'd like to see examples of firms which have entered established industries, without the presence of significant capital, land or any other leverage, and established itself as a significant player in the game. To be honest, I bet there are examples of this - but they're rare enough that I doubt you can find one.

Remember, you petulant little child, the point was never that power structures are static entities consistently consolidating power toward one firm. It is that all power structures attempt to consolidate power, and in the process it is only prevalent contemporary power structures which can maintain power in established industries. The only possible exception to this is in examples like the fledgling computer markets which rearranged industrial relations - but by and large (big surprise here!) they served to consolidate power structures by providing services to them. They just became significant power brokers themselves.

When it comes to the common man, woman, localized power structures are consistently being isolated from our control. Competition is a centralizing force, and there has never been any indication to the contrary.

Ireland-Lover has a very good quote cited to Chomsky which underlines how invalid the "competion for labor" model is:

But let's put that aside... Well, by now the assumptions underpinning these theories are not only false - they're the opposite of the truth. By now labor is immobile, through immigration restrictions and so on, and capital is highly mobile, primarily because of technological changes. So none of the results work anymore. But you're still taught them, you're still taught the theories exactly as before - even though the reality today is the exact opposite of what we assumed in the early nineteenth century. I mean, if you look at some of the fancier economists, Paul Krugman and so on, they've got all kinds of little tricks here and there to make the results not quite so grotesquely ridiculous as they'd otherwise be. But fundamentally, it all just is pretty ridiculous. If capital is mobile and labor is immobile, there's no reason why mobile capital shouldn't seek absolute advantage and play one national workforce against another, go wherever the labor is cheapest and thereby drive everybody's standard of living down. In fact, that's exactly what we're doing in NAFTA and all these other international trade agreements which are being instituted right now. Nothing in these abstract economic models actually works in the real world. It doesn't matter how many footnotes they put in, or how many ways they tinker around the edges. The whole enterprise is totally rotten at the core: it has no relation to reality anymore - and furthermore, it never did.

Really, you should put more thought into your posts. The insufferable pedestrian attitude about the theories and arguments you submit makes your entire edifice a laughable facade. Why even mention perfect competition if you will completely back off from any criticism of it? :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

Classic Skooma - provide 1 part clear argument with 4 parts obfuscation and retreat.


My point was extremely simple and easy to understand. Your initial claim

"As soon as one party achieves dominance over another, be it via efficiency, force or other market manipulation, it rearranges the rules so that they don't have to compete to stay there."

Is clearly incorrect because companies which at one point in time were the most efficient have on many occasions lost their position as industry leaders or they have gone bankrupt. So you are wrong. Grasp that fact.


Here you claim that my point that power structures beget self-empowerment because "power structures rise and out-compete others." I'd like to see examples of firms which have entered established industries, without the presence of significant capital, land or any other leverage, and established itself as a significant player in the game. To be honest, I bet there are examples of this - but they're rare enough that I doubt you can find one.

For starters, you claimed that once a competitive edge is established, the firm in question no longer has to compete. Now you are backpedaling and adding conditions to your statement. But there are quite a few examples of people with small amounts of capital starting successful firms. As for examples right off the top of my head, how about Google or Bank of America?


Really, you should put more thought into your posts. The insufferable pedestrian attitude about the theories and arguments you submit makes your entire edifice a laughable facade. Why even mention perfect competition if you will completely back off from any criticism of it? :rolleyes:

Back off criticism of it? What are you talking about. Most markets today are between oligopoly and perfect competition. That is a fact. You randomly became obsessed over it for some reason when I was simply using it for a reference point.

By the way, when you make this long, rambling, and confusing posts, I take it to mean that you concede the point.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Trading is a capitalist idea.

If a single communist entity is in need of certain things, they should trade what they can to obtain it, if they cannot receive it from another communist entity.

Numerous communist entities should be sharing any/all resources with each other.

Gotta have international worker/red unity. That involves close ties and relationships with every other communist entity.

Note: since there are no communist entities (I'm talking pure communism, not Chinese state capitalism or Cuban state socialism, this is merely what should occur within actual communist society.

[Adi Shankara]

Free trade is almost never free.

[Kayser_Soso]

Trading is a capitalist idea.

If a single communist entity is in need of certain things, they should trade what they can to obtain it, if they cannot receive it from another communist entity.

Numerous communist entities should be sharing any/all resources with each other.

Gotta have international worker/red unity. That involves close ties and relationships with every other communist entity.

Note: since there are no communist entities (I'm talking pure communism, not Chinese state capitalism or Cuban state socialism, this is merely what should occur within actual communist society.

Trade has existed long before capitalism.

[bailey_187]

Trading is a capitalist idea.

If a single communist entity is in need of certain things, they should trade what they can to obtain it, if they cannot receive it from another communist entity.

Numerous communist entities should be sharing any/all resources with each other.

Gotta have international worker/red unity. That involves close ties and relationships with every other communist entity.

Note: since there are no communist entities (I'm talking pure communism, not Chinese state capitalism or Cuban state socialism, this is merely what should occur within actual communist society.

would these imagined "communist entities" be self sufficent, or would each specialise in a certain good?

[Dean]

My point was extremely simple and easy to understand. Your initial claim

"As soon as one party achieves dominance over another, be it via efficiency, force or other market manipulation, it rearranges the rules so that they don't have to compete to stay there."

Is clearly incorrect because companies which at one point in time were the most efficient have on many occasions lost their position as industry leaders or they have gone bankrupt. So you are wrong. Grasp that fact.
You simply refuse to accept that centuries of hegemony serve as historical proof that competition begets reinforcement of power.


For starters, you claimed that once a competitive edge is established, the firm in question no longer has to compete. Now you are backpedaling and adding conditions to your statement. But there are quite a few examples of people with small amounts of capital starting successful firms. As for examples right off the top of my head, how about Google or Bank of America?
Google represented the winner in a new industry. BoA actually has been around 90 years, started in a new market (banking catering to immigrants), grew via consolidation and to top it all off, considered Countrywide's Mortgage system so much more efficient upon acquisition that they switched over to the system.

Clearly, simple efficiency wasn't how BoA was able to acquire countrywide. In fact, before their acquisition, they didn't even offer 2k loans!


Back off criticism of it? What are you talking about. Most markets today are between oligopoly and perfect competition. That is a fact. You randomly became obsessed over it for some reason when I was simply using it for a reference point.

By the way, when you make this long, rambling, and confusing posts, I take it to mean that you concede the point.
How can claiming that the world fits in your own dichotomy between two theories be "a fact" not worth exploring in the context of a discussion on free trade? You've consistently defended competition and described it in positive terms, claiming that government intervention provides neraly all of the centralized economic structures today, but yet you refuse to explore the issue further.

I'm sorry if you are too obtuse to understand my posts, but your ignorance in no way undermines my points. The bottom line is that you won't even acknowledge the points I'm making about power structures.

[Agnapostate]

It's true that "free trade" doesn't exist because the expansion of authoritarian labor market conditions has only an antithetical relationship with freedom, and trade relations are characterized by significant regulatory structure anyway. The principle of trade and globalization maximizing comparative advantage seems intuitively true, and I don't see any good objection to trade and globalization per se, but such an elementary textbook fantasy has little relationship to actual trade conditions. Within the confines of the global capitalist economy, the most sensible strategy would probably be a middle ground between autarky and rapacious expansion (so-called "fair trade"), which can maximize comparative advantage while protecting the development of infant industries so as to maximize dynamic comparative advantage in the long run. The advanced economies of the first world developed under shields of tariffs and quotas, after all.

[Skooma Addict]

You simply refuse to accept that centuries of hegemony serve as historical proof that competition begets reinforcement of power.


So you have given up on defending this claim then...

"As soon as one party achieves dominance over another, be it via efficiency, force or other market manipulation, it rearranges the rules so that they don't have to compete to stay there."

Yes? Good.


Google represented the winner in a new industry. BoA actually has been around 90 years, started in a new market (banking catering to immigrants), grew via consolidation and to top it all off, considered Countrywide's Mortgage system so much more efficient upon acquisition that they switched over to the system.

Clearly, simple efficiency wasn't how BoA was able to acquire countrywide. In fact, before their acquisition, they didn't even offer 2k loans!

As far as I know there were search engines before Google. Banking was also a well established Market by the time BoA joined it. They may have found a niche in the market, but big deal.


How can claiming that the world fits in your own dichotomy between two theories be "a fact" not worth exploring in the context of a discussion on free trade? You've consistently defended competition and described it in positive terms, claiming that government intervention provides neraly all of the centralized economic structures today, but yet you refuse to explore the issue further.

I don't refuse to explore the issue further. Since that is...you know...what this entire conversation has been about.


I'm sorry if you are too obtuse to understand my posts, but your ignorance in no way undermines my points. The bottom line is that you won't even acknowledge the points I'm making about power structures.

I wouldn't call your posts in this topic "points" as much as random ramblings.

[Agnapostate]

Also, subsidization and protectionism are NOT true capitalism. In fact protectionism is the antithesis of free markets.

Your posts read like those of a pseudo-libertarian, the same group of people who ironically mock claims that state capitalism is not socialism and simultaneously claim that Western capitalism is actually "corporatism" and not "true" capitalism (along with inexplicably attributing all economic progress to "capitalism").


That seems more than a little hyperbolic. Ever since the industrial revolution, living standards, median income, infant mortality, malnutrition, health, technological innovation, and just about every other measure of human welfare you can think of has improved drastically. Are you saying free markets had nothing to do with this?

Certainly. Even ignoring the fact that free markets do not exist, what's called "free trade" wasn't the developmental strategy that empowered modern prosperous national economies.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm


Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the "official historians" of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

As I see it, you can either concede that capitalism is characterized by significant government intervention, or stick to your ludicrous utopian definition (rejected by economic consensus), and therefore concede that capitalism has never existed and is therefore not responsible for economic prosperity.


Most markets are somewhere between oligopoly and perfect competition.


What are you talking about. Most markets today are between oligopoly and perfect competition. That is a fact.

There is very little point in picking through the typical barrage of inaccuracies in your posts, but since you repeated this particular erroneous statement, most capitalist markets are between oligopoly and monopolistic competition. Perfect competition and infinite elasticity are essentially nonexistent outside of the textbook.

[Skooma Addict]

There is very little point in picking through the typical barrage of inaccuracies in your posts, but since you repeated this particular erroneous statement, most capitalist markets are between oligopoly and monopolistic competition. Perfect competition and infinite elasticity are essentially nonexistent outside of the textbook. I know that perfect competition is essentially nonexistent. I would still say that most markets today lie in the area between perfect competition and oligopoly. There are too many firms in most markets to warrant saying that they are in between oligopoly and monopoly in my opinion.

[Agnapostate]

I would still say that most markets today lie in the area between perfect competition and oligopoly. There are too many firms in most markets to warrant saying that they are in between oligopoly and monopoly in my opinion.

I said oligopoly and monopolistic competition, not monopoly. Monopoly is a market structure characterized by a literal single firm or more commonly, a single firm with control over such significant market shares that it functions as an unchallenged price maker. Monopolistic competition, on the contrary, is characterized by numerous firms, product differentiation, and low barriers to entry. They're quite distinct. Please invest in a microeconomics textbook.

[Skooma Addict]

I said oligopoly and monopolistic competition, not monopoly. Monopoly is a market structure characterized by a literal single firm or more commonly, a single firm with control over such significant market shares that it functions as an unchallenged price maker. Monopolistic competition, on the contrary, is characterized by numerous firms, product differentiation, and low barriers to entry. They're quite distinct. Please invest in a microeconomics textbook.

So why did you claim my initial statement was erroneous? The area between monopolistic competition and oligopoly was included in my initial statement. "Between oligopoly and perfect competition" includes monopolistic competition. Your way of putting it was just somewhat less general. There was certainly no need to nitpick.

Also if you want to contest any points I made which were actually relevant to the discussion as opposed to some random nitpicking, be my guest.

[Demogorgon]

I am going to try and behave myself and not jump into the above argument and instead go back to the original question of what is wrong with free trade?

The thing is, here we have a very loaded question because it does not even tell us what free trade is. The OP suggested that free trade may be what exists between the states in America and that is fair enough, they cannot raise tariffs against one another, stop the import and export of goods (with a few exceptions) and so forth. However they are free to subsidise local industry, promote internal development and so on, something that many free trade ideologues dislike.

However what many try to defend when they talk about free trade is the system where third world countries get their markets forced open and local industry killed off. Economic orthodoxy states that all countries will have an absolute or comparative advantage in some field or another so trade is always beneficial. However this can only apply when they have a chance to find out what this advantage is and this requires allowing new industry to grow and give it the chance to become competitive. All major economic powers got that way by protecting internal industry until it had matured and then opened its market. Britain in the eighteenth century was very protectionist and then in the Nineteenth century complained about America practicing protectionism itself. Now that America is the dominant player and it and the other dominant economies attempt to force open markets-and thereby kick away the ladder-so that others do not have the chance they did.

So to sum up, is there any particular reason to restrict goods between-for instance-Britain and France? Not really. Both countries are of roughly equal development and wealth and economic transactions going between the two countries are neither better nor worse than capitalist transactions within the countries. So economic activity across the channel should be treated no differently than activity within either country. On the other hand is there good reason to oppose forcing open third world markets so as to choke off nascent industry before it gets the chance to develop? Absolutely.

[Dimentio]

Trade advances human society and has brought more opportunities to the poor and rich than anything else. It is indisputably good for individuals. Isn't it the same on the national level?

Look up the article "Free trade" on the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

Which part of that article is wrong?

If trade was made between equal parties in a spirit of respect, then it would probably make everyone better of. As it is now, some are possessing all the capital and are utilising it to buy up resources in developing nations and utilising those resources to basically develop the country's economy into being subservient to the economies of more developed regions.

[Ovi]

Trade advances human society and has brought more opportunities to the poor and rich than anything else. It is indisputably good for individuals. Isn't it the same on the national level?

Look up the article "Free trade" on the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

Which part of that article is wrong?
First of all, when cappies talk about free trade, what they actually defend is property rights. When they say that they don't want any legislations concerning their activities, they ask not to be responsible for any of their actions. For instance, they should have the right to build a coal power plant without any expensive scrubbing equipment and they should bear no cost to the health effects that they cause to the local population. This local population should of course have no power upon the owners of the plant since it's private property; they are forced to accept whatever decisions the cappies make for them; it's called dictatorship, dictatorship imposed by the property relations. As if that wasn't enough, the market economy forces other producers to do the same, in a manner similar to a race to the bottom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom) , meaning, other energy producers will have to use the similar highly damaging technologies that externalize as much of the costs as possible; otherwise, they won't be competitive and the market will phase them out. In essence, each producer acts as a dictator, imposing how others should manage their production. And there's another form of tyranny: consumers have no saying in how the products that they buy are made, for instance what food additives they contain. Fortunately, many harmful compounds have been banned by our states, limiting the amount of damage that free trade can do. So what free trade actually means is defending private property, which is a form of dictatorship; both upon other producers, consumers, workers (wage slaves) and the local population.

That's why environmentalism is in opposition to capitalism; you can't have green technologies as long as the market forces you to externalize as much of the costs as possible. This is why the market economy doesn't necessarily lead to cheap products, but to great profits at the expense of the others. Adding together all the costs of fossil fuels, meaning all health expenses caused by pollution, oil spills, land degradation due to surface mining, global warming and so on, we might as well discover that wind energy is in fact cheaper. But the market will never choose the cheaper one, since it's not the producers who bear these costs, but everyone else, now and for generations to come.

And of course, there's always the issue of competition. Competition is damaging to those who compete, since it maintains a state of continuous battle between them; naturally, corporations would have no reason to do so and would instead form cartels. It is the state who imposes the market economy in the first place using antitrust laws. Otherwise, anti-competitive practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices), such as price fixing or dividing territories would naturally develop and the consumers would be the ones supporting all the costs. There have been many such cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing_cases) in the past, but fortunately we have states that prevent such activities (and that's coming from an anarchist), that would otherwise lead to monopolies, which would be even more harmful than the state imposed market economy.

[Left-Reasoning]

However what many try to defend when they talk about free trade is the system where third world countries get their markets forced open and local industry killed off. Economic orthodoxy states that all countries will have an absolute or comparative advantage in some field or another so trade is always beneficial. However this can only apply when they have a chance to find out what this advantage is and this requires allowing new industry to grow and give it the chance to become competitive. All major economic powers got that way by protecting internal industry until it had matured and then opened its market. Britain in the eighteenth century was very protectionist and then in the Nineteenth century complained about America practicing protectionism itself. Now that America is the dominant player and it and the other dominant economies attempt to force open markets-and thereby kick away the ladder-so that others do not have the chance they did.

So to sum up, is there any particular reason to restrict goods between-for instance-Britain and France? Not really. Both countries are of roughly equal development and wealth and economic transactions going between the two countries are neither better nor worse than capitalist transactions within the countries. So economic activity across the channel should be treated no differently than activity within either country. On the other hand is there good reason to oppose forcing open third world markets so as to choke off nascent industry before it gets the chance to develop? Absolutely.


Someone's been reading Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

Someone's been reading Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.
You will have to forgive me if I disappoint you by saying that I am not entirely sure if I have ever heard of that book before, let alone read it. It rings a bell, but there are a few books with that sort of name. Anyway, I am to take it that it presents that sort of argument?

[Left-Reasoning]

You will have to forgive me if I disappoint you by saying that I am not entirely sure if I have ever heard of that book before, let alone read it. It rings a bell, but there are a few books with that sort of name. Anyway, I am to take it that it presents that sort of argument?

You take it correctly. I apologized if I assumed falsely but the argument you gave could have come directly out of that book.

[McCroskey]

USA a free market economy? Well, as it has been said, it is in some aspects, but it is fiercely protectionist. American free market translates as free for them to trade with who they want, but intensely protectionist against any foreign free trade. It is also (Chomsly et al have written about this very often), incredibly subsidised, by way of state spending in military research and so on, which is afterwards handed over to corporations (think of the development of GPS technology, the internet, experimental drugs, etc, all of them subsidised by the goverment with public money and then exploited by private corporations). USA will defend free market within their territory and american interests, but they don´t hesitate to intervene (either by protectionists means, like the limit in foreign capital investment in US companies, or even violent means, like military intervention). USA has a very subsidised and protectionist "free market".
Free market is an illusion created to justify agressive exploitation of third world resources, and it creates devastation and kills human beings. Take for example Guatemala. The 2006 free trade agreement for food products with the US led to the removal of the tariffs imposed on the food imports from the US, the result is that the local food produce cannot compete in price with these food imports, subsidised in origin, so a great percentage of local food produce has ceased, leading to a much greater food dependance in imports (essentialy from the US). Result: Half of the Gualtemalan children under 5 are is undernourished, famine levels are around 16%, predominantly women producers, peasant communities and indigenous population.

Well, this is what "free market" tries to justify. The US justify this injustice by promoting free market rules, but, for example in the case of Guatemala, the "free trade" agreement was a strategy to open the Guatemalan market to US subsidised food products and to actually create a monopoly and a dependancy in the country, a secured market. The minute another imperialist nation steps in, and start competing with US product in Guatemala, they will resort to extreme protectionist measures (for example, forcing the goverment to choose US product before the other, or , if they can´t get away with it, instigating a change of goverment into a puppet one, as they have usually done). The minute there is an agrarian reform in the country (80% of the land is owned by 8% of the producers) and there is the posibility that Guatemala would be capable of feed itself, they will instigate civil unrest, or fund a reaction, to keep that market of exploitation open. They usually refer to this as "protecting US interests abroad" in the army and goverment speeches.

So no, nothing good comes from free market, among other reasons because it is very far from being "free", and no, US has never enjoyed free market, it has a highly subsidised market and a very protectionist one. Look how the banks keep all the profits but ask the goverment for subsidy as soon as they screw up (because "we are all in this together", too bad we are never in this together when they make profits).

For an economist or an advocate of free market, those people starving in Guatemala are not a factor of the strategy, as the success of an enterprise is only measured in terms of private profit, and how these profit "benefit" the few workers that can make a buck out of it. The global picture, hunger, war, environment, are left outside the scheme. We communists look at the whole picture, and we seek that production is used to benefit everyone. That is called social justice. We cannot accept a system that relies on the suffering of "hidden" people that you try not to see, that you fight hard to be able to imagine that are "from another planet", and that the media constantly nullify as being distant inhabitants of remote countries who we shouldn´t care about, just to make sure that a few live a life of luxury. There may be freedom in capitalist countries, but there is no justice.

[Agnapostate]

So why did you claim my initial statement was erroneous? The area between monopolistic competition and oligopoly was included in my initial statement. "Between oligopoly and perfect competition" includes monopolistic competition.

Sure. In the same sense that you might describe your GPA as being "between 1.0 and 4.0" when it's between 1.0 and 1.5. But then again, the statement was so ambiguously phrased as to imply that market structures were generally evenly split "between oligopoly and perfect competition." In reality, perfect competition doesn't come into the picture at all, so it's not an accurate range point to set. And more than that, you were unambiguously wrong in your assumption that monopolistic competition was synonymous with monopoly, which is a common error among the economically uninformed.

[Skooma Addict]

Sure. In the same sense that you might describe your GPA as being "between 1.0 and 4.0" when it's between 1.0 and 1.5. But then again, the statement was so ambiguously phrased as to imply that market structures were generally evenly split "between oligopoly and perfect competition." In reality, perfect competition doesn't come into the picture at all, so it's not an accurate range point to set.Fair enough (Although my GPA is a 4.0:)).



And more than that, you were unambiguously wrong in your assumption that monopolistic competition was synonymous with monopoly, which is a common error among the economically uninformed. I never heard the phrase "monopolistic competition" before. Or if I did, I just didn't remember it. However, I was aware of all the conditions which are used to describe monopolistic competition. Although I see you haven't yet criticized me on anything substantial in this thread.

[Agnapostate]

You take it correctly. I apologized if I assumed falsely but the argument you gave could have come directly out of that book.

It's pretty common knowledge among radical-oriented people. Chang is probably the premier heterodox economist writing on that specific issue, though, which is why I quoted him first.

[Agnapostate]

Fair enough (Although my GPA is a 4.0:)).

I never heard the phrase "monopolistic competition" before. Or if I did, I just didn't remember it.

So, combining these two facts, it seems a sound inference that you've never taken a micro course.

[Skooma Addict]

So, combining these two facts, it seems a sound inference that you've never taken a micro course.

No. I took Micro. I read Mankiw's introductory book.

[Ele'ill]

Free Trade as we know it doesn't raise living standards.

In fact, it lowers them- in just about every situation you could identify and research.

I'll go a step further and say that in order for Capitalist Free Trade (today) to function and continue functioning- there needs to be a lowering of living standards- which is why we see it.

[Drace]

Well no shit. "Free" trade is better then no trade. Doesnt mean there isnt a better alternative.

[Agnapostate]

No. I took Micro. I read Mankiw's introductory book.

Biased neoclassical propaganda. And apparently short on concepts, though I disliked it too much to read the majority.

[Ele'ill]

Well no shit. "Free" trade is better then no trade. Doesnt mean there isnt a better alternative.


I think you just did a- "Yes, No, Yes."

[Skooma Addict]

Free Trade as we know it doesn't raise living standards.

In fact, it lowers them- in just about every situation you could identify and research.

I'll go a step further and say that in order for Capitalist Free Trade (today) to function and continue functioning- there needs to be a lowering of living standards- which is why we see it. The floating population of 130m migrant workers in China's boomtowns earned 17% more on average last year than they did the year before.



Biased neoclassical propaganda. And apparently short on concepts, though I disliked it too much to read the majority.

I thought it was pretty short on concepts as well, but overall I actually thought it was semi decent. I wouldn't recommend it though. As far as introductory texts go, I think Rothbards MES is very good for someone who isn't taking a formal class. The person just has to skip a few pages where Rothbard starts talking about natural rights and objective morality (two kooky ideas).

[know2b]

Marx & Engels described free trade as "destructive" of capitalism and protectionist fair trade as "conservative" of capitalism. They supported free trade on that basis.

Capitalists want protectionist fair trade while they build up enough strength to compete globally, then they want free trade. Marx & Engels said to give capitalists what they want, because it will bring about the self-destruction of capitalism that much sooner.

I understand their argument but I find it hard to swallow. Free trade might help the future working class, but it hurts them in the present.

[Agnapostate]

I thought it was pretty short on concepts as well, but overall I actually thought it was semi decent.

The reason that it was short on concepts is that it didn't teach you what monopolistic competition is.

[Skooma Addict]

The reason that it was short on concepts is that it didn't teach you what monopolistic competition is.

Idk why you randomly repeated yourself.

[Agnapostate]

Idk why you randomly repeated yourself.

That's what the majority of your posts make me think, but these here drove the point home harder than usual. You made an inaccurate statement about market structures, it was corrected, and you then made another inaccurate statement about a specific market structure. It's important because it illustrates that you don't know the specific conditions of market concentration in the global economy and that you wouldn't be able to describe them with accurate terminology even if you did, and that your limited knowledge of economics impedes your learning.

[Skooma Addict]

That's what the majority of your posts make me think, but these here drove the point home harder than usual. You made an inaccurate statement about market structures, it was corrected, and you then made another inaccurate statement about a specific market structure. It's important because it illustrates that you don't know the specific conditions of market concentration in the global economy and that you wouldn't be able to describe them with accurate terminology even if you did, and that your limited knowledge of economics impedes your learning.

You didn't reply to anything of actual substance. If my points were as bad as you claim, you should be able to rather than randomly repeat yourself.

[scarletghoul]

Free Trade is a load of shit. It doesnt benefit the workers. It is a marketing ploy. The only problem it solves is the first world consumer's white middleclass guilt.

Fuck Fair Trade.

[Dean]

So you have given up on defending this claim then...

"As soon as one party achieves dominance over another, be it via efficiency, force or other market manipulation, it rearranges the rules so that they don't have to compete to stay there."

Yes? Good.
In fact, achieving more market shares is not dominance. Your problem is in assuming that the issue is black and white.

The simple fact is that acquisition of means to control market characteristics empowers the given acquirer. You've ranted about the ability for governments to do this very thing. Why can't you accept that businesses - who often engage in your boogeyman, force - have the same potential?

As far as I know there were search engines before Google. Banking was also a well established Market by the time BoA joined it. They may have found a niche in the market, but big deal.
They are by definition new markets (in Google's case, a very young market if not 100% new). Search engines hadn't been around very long (though the old player Yahoo has maintained significant power at Alexa rank 4). We both know that new markets represent potential for new power to arise.

Your whole mode of argument has always been to support centralized systems because "they aren't all-powerful." It's not a very good policy since centralized systems do create lopsided economic relations.

[know2b]

Free Trade is a load of shit. It doesnt benefit the workers.

Of course it doesn't. It harms them greatly. But it also harms capitalism, according to Marx & Engels. As a Marxist, it seems to me that you should support free trade. You should even vote for the most extreme right wing candidates in every election. Then you should agitate against the government you helped elect, and help educate the working class on how to survive in spite of that government by uniting in solidarity to provide for themselves all the programs that the right wing extremists will cut. It seems to me that Marx & Engels would advocate this approach, because it demonstrates most effectively the harm that capitalism does to the working class, and the fact that they will have to work around this enemy in order to survive. And this will make them want to abolish it.

I don't think I could bring myself to take this approach, but I do think that it most closely fits the proper Marxist approach, according to its founders and ultimate reference points. I think that the degree to which you advocate this approach shows the degree to which you advocate Marxism proper.

[-Strelok]

I support a market that has minimal regulation but not abolition of regulation - the benefits of some regulations simply outweigh the spending required.

[RGacky3]

I support a market that has minimal regulation but not abolition of regulation - the benefits of some regulations simply outweigh the spending required.


The spending? You mean paying the wages of the regulators??? Regulation does'nt cost anything significant

[Agnapostate]

You didn't reply to anything of actual substance.

How would I, when quoting you?


If my points were as bad as you claim, you should be able to rather than randomly repeat yourself.

You made several economically inaccurate statements and I corrected them. It's as simple as that. I'm just waiting for your forced laughter and sheepish admission of error, the same one that came after you idiotically tried to troll people with phony Bertrand Russell quotes.

[Skooma Addict]

Again all you do is make dismissive remarks. The fact that I had not heard the term "monopolistic competition" before isn't any worse than the fact that you didn't know the Coase theorem only applies when there are no transaction costs.

[Agnapostate]

Again all you do is make dismissive remarks. The fact that I had not heard the term "monopolistic competition" before isn't any worse than the fact that you didn't know the Coase theorem only applies when there are no transaction costs.

LOL. As a temporary advocate of Pigovian taxation, I would never mention the Coase theorem in the context of externality prevention, except for the fact that I was mocking the Internet Austrian approach. So you'll have to bring this particular complaint to your little friends on mises.org.

The fact that you did not know what monopolistic competition was is simply evidence of your ignorance of microeconomics and economics more generally, along with the fact that you interpreted a term that contained the word "competition" as the modified subject as a reference to concentrated monopoly.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

[Skooma Addict]

Idk why I even spent as much time as I did responding to your mindless bickering. The fact that I did not know the definition of "monopolistic competition" does not prove that I am totally ignorant of economics. It is just a term that I admit I should have known. You are blowing the issue way out of proportion. This is a tactic you do all the time, and idk why I even bother with it.

[Dean]

Again all you do is make dismissive remarks. The fact that I had not heard the term "monopolistic competition" before isn't any worse than the fact that you didn't know the Coase theorem only applies when there are no transaction costs.
This embolded part is precisely true of your posting habit. You consistently provide little more than dismissive contradictions whilst ignoring the meat of argument s- for instance, in our debate, my position is that power of all sorts provides leverage to defend itself (i.e. a firm having money provides it the resources to purchase insurance and security for its property). You think that providing examples which show the weakness of such firms negates my argument. Your strategy is little more than dismissive contrarianism.

[Skooma Addict]

This embolded part is precisely true of your posting habit. You consistently provide little more than dismissive contradictions whilst ignoring the meat of argument s- for instance, in our debate, my position is that power of all sorts provides leverage to defend itself (i.e. a firm having money provides it the resources to purchase insurance and security for its property). You think that providing examples which show the weakness of such firms negates my argument. Your strategy is little more than dismissive contrarianism.

Wait...really? You are accusing me of making dismissive remarks? You always belittle people at the end of your posts. It is all the more pathetic given that you are a mod.

[Dean]

Wait...really? You are accusing me of making dismissive remarks? You always belittle people at the end of your posts. It is all the more pathetic given that you are a mod.

Insulting people is not dismissive. Providing curt, obtuse answers is dismissive. I admit that I can be harsh, and I apologize for where I've been that way with you. Your debating style really infuriates me, however, precisely for the reasons I cited above.

It's very disappointing after putting a decent amount of thought into a post to get little more than a one-line refutation, typically to the effect that "since firms can potentially lose power, competition isn't a stratifying/centralizing/exploitative force."

It would be nice, as I said, if you'd put more thought into your posts.

[Agnapostate]

Idk why I even spent as much time as I did responding to your mindless bickering. The fact that I did not know the definition of "monopolistic competition" does not prove that I am totally ignorant of economics. It is just a term that I admit I should have known. You are blowing the issue way out of proportion. This is a tactic you do all the time, and idk why I even bother with it.

I'm wondering how I'm both "dismissive" and "blowing the issue way out of proportion." Those would seem to be contradictory behaviors. Now, back to the topic, monopolistic competition isn't a particularly advanced or even intermediate concept; it's taught in introductory, basic microeconomics. That you're not familiar with such basic concepts is why you've made such ignorant remarks about market structure and proclivities towards concentration here and elsewhere.

[Skooma Addict]

You are dismissive because you believe that you can simply declare that I am ignorant of economics because I was unfamiliar with a term. You proceed to ignore that majority of the content of my posts, dismissing them by claiming that I have made other errors in this thread, without any further elaboration on your part. You blow the issue out of proportion because not knowing what the term "monopolistic competition" means does not mean one is completely ignorant of economics. I also know the concepts of monopolistic competition. I simply did not know what the term meant. Now I do. The only difference between then and now is that I can define what monopolistic competition means. I have no better or lesser understanding of the concepts behind it.

You do not want to actually discuss or debate any issues. Your goal is simply to get a "gotcha" moment on me.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

You are dismissive because you believe that you can simply declare that I am ignorant of economics because I was unfamiliar with a term. You proceed to ignore that majority of the content of my posts, dismissing them by claiming that I have made other errors in this thread, without any further elaboration on your part. You blow the issue out of proportion because not knowing what the term "monopolistic competition" means does not mean one is completely ignorant of economics. I also know the concepts of monopolistic competition. I simply did not know what the term meant. Now I do. The only difference between then and now is that I can define what monopolistic competition means. I have no better or lesser understanding of the concepts behind it.

You do not want to actually discuss or debate any issues. Your goal is simply to get a "gotcha" moment on me.

I think his point was that this proves you know nothing of economics when put in the context of everything else you've said. Which, I also think demonstrates you being nothing more than a lonely boy who spends too much time reading vulgar ass mises articles and thinks they'll somehow equip him to deal with leftists who have put thousands of hours into studying all of this, but due to his arrogance, refuses to accept he just isn't educated enough to do anything beyond spam misinformed one liners in response to essays, and then complain when people insult him.

On the positive, you like oblivion, which is good, but morrowind is far better imo.

[Skooma Addict]

I think his point was that this proves you know nothing of economics when put in the context of everything else you've said. Which, I also think demonstrates you being nothing more than a lonely boy who spends too much time reading vulgar ass mises articles and thinks they'll somehow equip him to deal with leftists who have put thousands of hours into studying all of this, but due to his arrogance, refuses to accept he just isn't educated enough to do anything beyond spam misinformed one liners in response to essays, and then complain when people insult him.

On the positive, you like oblivion, which is good, but morrowind is far better imo. See, this is why many people who are disliked by the vanguard decide to leave or stop posting on this forum. You claim again without any further evidence that I know nothing of economics. So far the only actual solid proof that anyone has given is that I didn't know the definition of a term. Then you start saying I am a "lonely boy who just reads Mises articles" when I have spent more time on this site than I have on Mises.org, and I have read less than 20 Mises articles in my life. In fact I would only include 2 Austrian economists in my list of my top 5 favorite economists.

Have you ever had someone say offhand something like "You guys are just socialists because you are jealous or envious of people with more money or more skill than you." Well, what you are doing is just as pathetic as that. It also is not true that I only provide one liners.

Edit: And it is common knowledge that Morrowind is better than Oblivion. In Morrowind (I can't remember if you needed a mod) you could actually make your own Skooma using refined moon sugar.

[Agnapostate]

You are dismissive because you believe that you can simply declare that I am ignorant of economics because I was unfamiliar with a term. You proceed to ignore that majority of the content of my posts, dismissing them by claiming that I have made other errors in this thread, without any further elaboration on your part. You blow the issue out of proportion because not knowing what the term "monopolistic competition" means does not mean one is completely ignorant of economics. I also know the concepts of monopolistic competition. I simply did not know what the term meant. Now I do. The only difference between then and now is that I can define what monopolistic competition means. I have no better or lesser understanding of the concepts behind it.

You do not want to actually discuss or debate any issues. Your goal is simply to get a "gotcha" moment on me.

I don't know or care what the majority of your time on this forum is spent doing, but in the context of interactions with me, it's wasted making inaccurate and logically fallacious assertions about market concentration and power. That you do not even know the four basic market structures taught in introductory micro, with your specific ignorance involving one of the central two market structures, is very strong evidence that you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to carry on an informed dialogue about market concentration, let along make the baseless assertions that you do.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

See, this is why many people who are disliked by the vanguard decide to leave or stop posting on this forum. You claim again without any further evidence that I know nothing of economics. So far the only actual solid proof that anyone has given is that I didn't know the definition of a term. Then you start saying I am a "lonely boy who just reads Mises articles" when I have spent more time on this site than I have on Mises.org, and I have read less than 20 Mises articles in my life. In fact I would only include 2 Austrian economists in my list of my top 5 favorite economists.

Have you ever had someone say offhand something like "You guys are just socialists because you are jealous or envious of people with more money or more skill than you." Well, what you are doing is just as pathetic as that. It also is not true that I only provide one liners.

Edit: And it is common knowledge that Morrowind is better than Oblivion. In Morrowind (I can't remember if you needed a mod) you could actually make your own Skooma using refined moon sugar.

Sorry I would of thought that you'd be able to work out that the "proof" was all of your posts of this forum.


"That's one of the sickest and most totalitarian things I've ever read. I've always suspected that Libertarians blame the "inequality among races" on their "inferiority" rather than on the causes of colonialism, imperialism, and just the unfair distribution of resources in the capitalist system.

Free-marketeers/anarcho-capitalists practice extreme totalitarianism. They should be ignored.


Can I try?


Quote:
But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. ... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.
--Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society

Socialists/Communists practice extreme totalitarianism. They should be ignored."Being probably the best example of your trolling/one liners. (Not to mention complete fabrication. Though admittedly it was in response to some shitposting from Icarus.)

As far as not reading Mises articles - fine, I was wrong about that - it doesn't change the content of your posts.

As far as thinking me calling you a "lonely boy" was meant to be a substantial accusation - it was intended as hyperbole.

Likewise, obviously you do more than just write one liners - however they probably account for at least half of what you post...most of the time, said one liners seem to be in response to thoughtful posts written by leftists, and include totally unjustified assertions by you. Its very annoying to read, and I'm sure to argue against. I don't see how that can be denied.

[Skooma Addict]

Sorry I would of thought that you'd be able to work out that the "proof" was all of your posts of this forum.

In which case it would not prove the case you were trying to make.



"That's one of the sickest and most totalitarian things I've ever read. I've always suspected that Libertarians blame the "inequality among races" on their "inferiority" rather than on the causes of colonialism, imperialism, and just the unfair distribution of resources in the capitalist system.

Free-marketeers/anarcho-capitalists practice extreme totalitarianism. They should be ignored.


Can I try?

So what? I am not going to have a serious conversation when people say things like that. If someone makes a thread claiming that all you guys are all stalinists and you all just want to send people you don't like to gulags, will you take the time and the effort to give a thoughtful response?


As far as not reading Mises articles - fine, I was wrong about that - it doesn't change the content of your posts.

Your claims here had nothing to do with the content of my posts. Here you were trying to paint a specific picture of me as some kid who just reads a few Mises articles and then thinks he knows all there is to know about everything. So claiming that "it doesn't change the content of your posts" misses the point. The entire point of this comment was to erect a straw man caricature of me to attack.



Likewise, obviously you do more than just write one liners - however they probably account for at least half of what you post...most of the time, said one liners seem to be in response to thoughtful posts written by leftists, and include totally unjustified assertions by you. Its very annoying to read, and I'm sure to argue against. I don't see how that can be denied.

How about this. Go through every singe one of my posts in this thread, and try to find a single point made by me which fits the description above. If you are going to cite a one liner, explain specifically why it shouldn't have been a one liner. Looking through this thread, you will notice that my posts are not nearly as bad as you claim.

[Dean]

Your claims here had nothing to do with the content of my posts. Here you were trying to paint a specific picture of me as some kid who just reads a few Mises articles and then thinks he knows all there is to know about everything. So claiming that "it doesn't change the content of your posts" misses the point. The entire point of this comment was to erect a straw man caricature of me to attack.
To be fair, his representation isn't completely without merit. I don't think its accidental that you tend to cite neoclassical economic theory as your primary and often sole defense for your edifice.

You may note how most of my sources tend to be articles in the press. That's because I tend to value reporting on facts more than partisan theories.

In any case, I think your posts would be more appreciated if you actually expanded on and explained your framework rather than frequently providing little more than contradiction.

[Skooma Addict]

Between you, Agnopostate, and Gangsterio, this has to be one of the worst attempts to assault a persons character that I have ever seen.


To be fair, his representation isn't completely without merit. I don't think its accidental that you tend to cite neoclassical economic theory as your primary and often sole defense for your edifice.

Actually the representation is completely without merit. The only way you would know if it was or was not is if you knew me well enough to know what it is I read. But anyways, the citation of neoclassical theories is an argument against the claim that I only read Mises articles. You just gave an argument in my favor.

[Dean]

Between you, Agnopostate, and Gangsterio, this has to be one of the worst attempts to assault a persons character that I have ever seen.



Actually the representation is completely without merit. The only way you would know if it was or was not is if you knew me well enough to know what it is I read. But anyways, the citation of neoclassical theories is an argument against the claim that I only read Mises articles. You just gave an argument in my favor.

...and I never, for once, supported his claim that "you only read Misean works." :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

...and I never, for once, supported his claim that "you only read Misean works." :rolleyes:

So then we agree. His representation was without merit. Claiming that I post neoclassical theories as my primary source is in direct contrast to his caricature.

[Agnapostate]

So how have you been enjoying Burczak? Both the Austrian and neoclassical remarks can be supported if you keep going back to Hayek, since he's the golden mean between the two schools of thought. Of course, the fact that you don't really understand his work complicates issues.

[Zanthorus]

Of course it doesn't. It harms them greatly. But it also harms capitalism, according to Marx & Engels. As a Marxist, it seems to me that you should support free trade. You should even vote for the most extreme right wing candidates in every election. Then you should agitate against the government you helped elect, and help educate the working class on how to survive in spite of that government by uniting in solidarity to provide for themselves all the programs that the right wing extremists will cut. It seems to me that Marx & Engels would advocate this approach, because it demonstrates most effectively the harm that capitalism does to the working class, and the fact that they will have to work around this enemy in order to survive. And this will make them want to abolish it.

I don't think I could bring myself to take this approach, but I do think that it most closely fits the proper Marxist approach, according to its founders and ultimate reference points. I think that the degree to which you advocate this approach shows the degree to which you advocate Marxism proper.

First of all Marx and Engels did not advocate "free trade" as in laissez-faire capitalism. They advocated free trade as in the abolition of protective tarriffs and the allowance of the free international movement of capital. If you look at something like the Economic section of the program of the Parti Ouvrier which was drafted by Marx you'll see that it advocates various measures such as the eight hour day, a minimum wage, progressive taxation and welfare measures for the elderly and disabled. Further he was adamant that the struggle for reforms was an essential part of the struggle against capitalism as against people like Jules Guesde who believed that the reforms where the carrot on a stick which could never be realised in the framework of capitalism. Marx's theory of revolution doesn't rely on the politics of populist resentment but on the increasing self-government of the workers, their taking back control of their own lives and the social powers which are alienated from them by capitalism. This is why Marx was keen to emphasise the potentials of e.g trade union struggles as against the Proudhonists who said that it would inevitably lead to a rise in prices and hence could never increase real wages. On the face of it, arguing the opposite would seem to be self-defeating for Marx since it implies that workers can increase their wages within capitalism. But the deeper current running through the argument is that trade union struggle teaches workers to fight for their own interests as a class and to act as a class which in the long run is what will really lead to socialism.

Further, voting for right-wing candidates and then rallying against them most emphatically does not fit in with any of the Marxian theories about capitalism or the ultimate reference points of Marxism. According to Marxists capitalism has an inherent tendency towards cyclical crisis because of the tendential fall in the profit rate. This tendency cannot be prevented by state intervention, it can only be displaced. Therefore if Marxian theory is correct it doesn't matter who you vote for, the crisis is still coming, sooner or later.


That's because I tend to value reporting on facts more than partisan theories.

I think there's an unfortunate tendency on these boards when dealing with the Austrians to resort to vulgar empiricism. That approach is fundamentally flawed, without theory you cannot possibly hope to explain the real world. The approach which takes the surface appearances of capitalism as the fundamental reality and refuses to look beneath the surface for the underlying essence, the social relations of production, that approach has a name in the Marxist critique of political economy: Vulgar economics (Of course, the Austrians also fall into the category of vulgar economists. But not to the same degree as ultra-empiricists).

[LeftSideDown]

Not really sure how anyone can oppose people voluntarily trading something they own for something someone else owns.

[Skooma Addict]

So how have you been enjoying Burczak? Both the Austrian and neoclassical remarks can be supported if you keep going back to Hayek, since he's the golden mean between the two schools of thought. Of course, the fact that you don't really understand his work complicates issues.

So far I like his book. Haven't finished it yet though.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I love how it's called 'free trade'.

What's free about the developed world trading on completely unfair terms with developing nations.

Some call it free trade. I call it daylight robbery.

[know2b]

First of all Marx and Engels did not advocate "free trade" as in laissez-faire capitalism. They advocated free trade as in the abolition of protective tarriffs and the allowance of the free international movement of capital.

I know.


Marx & Engels described free trade as "destructive" of capitalism and protectionist fair trade as "conservative" of capitalism. They supported free trade on that basis.

Capitalists want protectionist fair trade while they build up enough strength to compete globally, then they want free trade. Marx & Engels said to give capitalists what they want, because it will bring about the self-destruction of capitalism that much sooner.

Free trade means the free international movement of capital.


If you look at something like the Economic section of the program of the Parti Ouvrier which was drafted by Marx you'll see that it advocates various measures such as the eight hour day, a minimum wage, progressive taxation and welfare measures for the elderly and disabled.

I didn't say otherwise. I just didn't elaborate that far.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First of all Marx and Engels did not advocate "free trade" as in laissez-faire capitalism. They advocated free trade as in the abolition of protective tarriffs and the allowance of the free international movement of capital.

Given the speculative damage done by the "free international movement of capital," would they oppose something like capital controls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control) today?

[Dean]

I think there's an unfortunate tendency on these boards when dealing with the Austrians to resort to vulgar empiricism. That approach is fundamentally flawed, without theory you cannot possibly hope to explain the real world. The approach which takes the surface appearances of capitalism as the fundamental reality and refuses to look beneath the surface for the underlying essence, the social relations of production, that approach has a name in the Marxist critique of political economy: Vulgar economics (Of course, the Austrians also fall into the category of vulgar economists. But not to the same degree as ultra-empiricists).

Serious news outlets do provide economic analysis, and I find the narrow theoretical discussions in any milieu to be just as problematic.

[Zanthorus]

I didn't say otherwise.

Yes, yes you did. You said that Marxism would imply that we would have to vote for right-wing governments to make the workers miserable, however this was false and I explained why.

[RGacky3]

Not really sure how anyone can oppose people voluntarily trading something they own for something someone else owns.

If only the world were that simple.

[Dean]

Not really sure how anyone can oppose people voluntarily trading something they own for something someone else owns.
Yeah, nothing harmful could ever come out of that. :rolleyes: