"Almost 100% of economists are in favor of free trade"

[Habash]

Says my IPE professor. It was our first class, which he spent discussing the merits of free trade and comparative advantage. He then proceeded to repeatedly declare that almost all economists agree that free trade is the way to go. I kinda figured where his ideological committments lie when he apologized for using the word "class" since it could be construed as a marxist term.

Thoughts on this? How I can I counter?

[Manic Impressive]

What he means is "almost 100% of economists I like are in favour of free trade". The statement is so blatantly false and illogical it shouldn't be hard to counter.

[Caj]

Even accepting that such a statistic is accurate (it isn't), that's an appeal to authority, not an actual argument in favor of free trade.

[Roxsas]

there is a ton of stuff but the most accessible one will be marx's elaboration of the 8-years growth n regression cycle of economies based on laisse-faire markets, which are still present nowadays including the markets collapse crisis or the most recent sony discharging 10,000 workers this month

[Positivist]

By economists he means people who majored in economics at a US university then went on to get rich off of the worthless stock market or off of worthless books about manouevering the worthless stock market. (Or they became professors like him where they taught people how great capitalism is and all about the wonderful world of the worthless stock market.)

[Firebrand]

Well if you are intending to maintain a capitalist economy on a global scale and make money off it then yes it is perfectly logical to support free trade, it makes it easier to keep wages low and weaken the working class where it is powerful. Not that protectionism is brilliant since it pushes up the prices of consumption, and therefore hits the workers hard.
The trouble is that most economists are in favour of the economy, whereas marxists want to replace it. So from the position that you want what is best for the economy as it relates to your economic position, free trade makes sense. Thus economists support it. Wheras Marxists want what is best for actual people as opposed to mystical market forces and therefore think the capitalist economy should be shot at dawn and replaced with a fairer and more logical system.

[gorillafuck]

the large majority of economists are in favor of free trade. I doubt it's "almost 100%", though.

[norwegianwood90]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists Here is a list of Marxian economists.

A large portion of economists exist to provide some semblance of a foundation for bourgeois economies. It's only natural that they would claim to support free trade--that's what their bourgeois supporters want.

[Railyon]

Bourgeois economics is pure apologism.

Like that one econ prof I had who slammed the Marxist concept of Industrial Reserve Army. He obviously neither read nor understood Marx.

[Sir Comradical]

Tell him that he's ignoring the contradiction between the ideal norms of free trade (i.e protecting individual property rights, facilitating free trade & free markets, and enforcing voluntarily agreed upon contractual obligations and all that shit) and the class interests served by the free-trade ideology. In other words that he's engaging in idealist bullshit. Also don't fall into the trap of getting into a protectionism vs. free-trade argument. As Lenin quite rightly pointed out in 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism':


"It is not the business of the proletariat," writes Hilferding "to contrast the more progressive capitalist policy with that of the now bygone era of free trade and of hostility towards the state. The reply of the proletariat to the economic policy of finance capital, to imperialism, cannot be free trade, but socialism. The aim of proletarian policy cannot today be the ideal of restoring free competition — which has now become a reactionary ideal — but the complete elimination of competition by the abolition of capitalism.""

[Ocean Seal]

Almost 100% of the bourgeoisie are in favor of exploitation.
Almost 100% of news anchors are in favor of reporting propaganda which pushes a bourgeois agenda.
Almost 100%...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Bourgeois economists are the priests of the capitalist order, spewing out dogma to support the existing system. Useless, the lot of them.

[Geiseric]

My "economics," class taught us that the corn industry (which is subsidised the fuck out of and is ruled by monsanto) is a GREAT fucking example of a free market. Bollocks. "Free Market," has never and will never exist. It is utopian, and the rhetoric for it is used to do things like pay workers shit.

[Lobotomy]

You probably won't be able to change his mind about anything. a lot of education is just jumping through hoops.

[ArrowLance]

You aren't really considered an Economist unless you are a Market Economist.

[Dean]

Says my IPE professor. It was our first class, which he spent discussing the merits of free trade and comparative advantage. He then proceeded to repeatedly declare that almost all economists agree that free trade is the way to go. I kinda figured where his ideological committments lie when he apologized for using the word "class" since it could be construed as a marxist term.

Thoughts on this? How I can I counter?


Economists agree on free trade because it has been repeatedly implemented in such a manner as to enrich US economic and political assets. It is a good policy in the same sense that expansionist and protectionist military policies are good for empires.

When economists blast Marx, they consistently attack centralized, privately held forms of political economy which doesn't prove anything about the viability of collectivism. Real worker collectives are usually only referred to in outdated forms (i.e. homesteading and some utopian projects) while contemporary worker-held factories are completely ignored.

In fact, where free market ideology is rebuked in the US, it is almost always because the vested interests are using state funds or assets like military policy to actively enrich themselves, and this is usually ignored, or billed in some terminology such as "maintaining free markets" or "protecting US assets" while they are in fact protectionist, predatory policies (let alone regulatory and opposed to free markets).

Indeed, the nations which are truly experiencing more stable, or even expanding economies (think China and Germany) are those which have maintained policies that encourage the production and holding of capital within their national boundaries, policies which are explicitly opposed to free markets and the free flow of capital across national borders in general.

Free markets are a euphemism for international free trade agreements. It might be valuable to point out to your teacher that freeing markets to encourage the free flow of capital across national boundaries serve to encourage lower labor and environmental standards where products are produced, because nations and labor markets then must compete to provide the most profitable conditions for capital, much like companies have to compete for consumer shares.

Think about it this way: if capital is going to the nations with free trade agreements, and predominantly to those with shitty labor and environmental policies, all nations start to compete for lower standards. And then those who succeed in this policy enjoy expanding economies and greater access to goods and arrangements with western nations in particular. This looks great on paper, but Russia and India throughout the 90s especially are great examples as to how this policy fails entire societies. To this day, India is killing and expropriating workers in their eastern regions in order to reinvest their land and drive down labor costs. Their environmental standards have literally led to deaths at the hands of US firms like Coca Cola. Russia is a great example of a nation whose national assets like oil pipelines were expropriated and some high-profile cases have come up with the West backing private enterprise while the Russian government asserted its national sovereignty to its pipelines, inevitably lining up against the west and against free trade, since free trade was only hurting their national interests.

[Klaatu]

By economists he means people who majored in economics at a US university then went on to get rich off of the worthless stock market or off of worthless books about manouevering the worthless stock market. (Or they became professors like him where they taught people how great capitalism is and all about the wonderful world of the worthless stock market.)

In league with those "Get-Rich-Quick" schemes one sees on late night TV.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think you're correct, Dean, that "free trade" is basically
a euphemism for international free trade agreements but I disagree that it enjoys support among (bourgeois) economists
because it has been repeatedly implemented in such a manner as to enrich US economic and political assets.

Rather, it is because economists like hegel have their head stuck in the clouds. On paper, trade based on comparative advantage does indeed maximize well being. Just as hockey pucks never experience friction. And I do think in a stateless, classless society, communities would be insane not to practice something akin to what economists consider to be abstract free trade.

But we have to understand that economists see free trade agreements as approximating, however woefully inadequately, this idealized state of completely unhindered flow of resources. It's an idiotically naive view but in their defense, these people aren't, by and large, paid to be cultured citizens making nuanced arguments that take into account a wide range of social sciences. Indeed,

In all commercial countries the division of labor is infinite, and every one’s thoughts are employed about one particular thing.... The minds of men are contracted, and rendered incapable of elevation. Education is despised, or at least neglected, and heroic spirit is utterly extinguished.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

You know what is even worst? My economics teacher said that Marxian economics is not real economics! Apparently, economics to him is only the study of capitalist and mixed economies. Something about economics being only about the allocation of goods and services through a competitive and "free" system. That is a bunch of bullshit.

Definition of "economics" from the American Heritage Dictionary:


The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.


Haha. I told him to his face he was wrong, not only about the definition of economics, but also about his idea of Marxism being restrictive. Giving all the power of production to the working class is apparently restrictive because no one is allowed to oppress the proletariat, the group that labors while the world bourgeoisie just sucks off the wealth they create. How sad.

[MarxSchmarx]

You know what is even worst? My economics teacher said that Marxian economics is not real economics! Apparently, economics to him is only the study of capitalist and mixed economies. Something about economics being only about the allocation of goods and services through a competitive and "free" system. That is a bunch of bullshit.

Definition of "economics" from the American Heritage Dictionary:


Haha. I told him to his face he was wrong, not only about the definition of economics, but also about his idea of Marxism being restrictive. Giving all the power of production to the working class is apparently restrictive because no one is allowed to oppress the proletariat, the group that labors while the world bourgeoisie just sucks off the wealth they create. How sad.

What your teacher likely meant, and probably garbled, was that Marxian economics is almost unique in how it interfaces with sociology, politics, and history, particularly technological history. In this sense it probably not really "pure" economics the way your economics textbook supposedly is, although Marxian economics can be made so.

It's also worth pointing out that Marx crouched his analysis very deliberately in the tradition and with the language of bourgeois economists. Marx in fact does analyze the class struggle assuming the "free" exchange of goods and competition. His basic insight was to understand how these transactions played out when one party has only labor to sell and another party seeks to grow their capital. So good for you for exposing ignorance. Indeed,to fully apreciate what Marx accomplished, it is important to understand bourgeois economics on its own terms.

[#FF0000]

Almost 100% of homeopathic doctors support power crystal therapy

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I'm an university lecturer, I host seminars on philosophy, and I can corroborate that a lot of my coworkers do not look at capitalism as the beacon of economic assurance.

For one to assay the true benefit of free trade, they can't have a keen interest solely based monetary rewards, but other factors, such as social equality, and quality of life of the citizenry.

Please provide an adroit narrative on the social aspects of free-trade when you revisit the class. To be honest, for personal benefit, he stands to reap greater rewards through free-trade, but does society benefit from the capitalistic system, or is it the contrary to his assertion? That is what makes up real principle. As a student, it is your responsibility to lead debate!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

OK: Economics is seen by bourgeois economists as making the ultra-shitty and crisis prone unstable system of capitalism function. Capital-ism has 1 Goal:

1: Accumulate Capital

So, Free trade helps exploit workers and move capital around more freely. The problem is that there are three kind of economists 1. Laissez Fairians 2. Keynsians (Liberal crybabies) 3. Marxists.

All three have different objectives. Laissez Fairian economists are the true capitalists. In secret, they want to have absolutely no government intervention as it disrupts the system (and they are right), capitalist economists such as these don't though have a set doctrine, mostly they get paid handsomely to talk to working people and demonstrate to them how stupid they are and that they need smart people to lead them, authority.

I can't say i completely disagree with your economics teacher though, most economists do want free trade, i don't see a problem with it, it just makes capitalism function a bit better... that is horrible for humans and great for capital. Keynsians are secretly (IMO) nationalists. They want to have Free Trade deals like NAFTA that fuck Mexican workers and mexican society into the abyss of misery while looking to create national "demand" without seeing that the point so long we have capital-ism (what will make the sole point of capitalism [to accumulate capital] function better in its psychopathy) to increase capital to the individual capitalist. I personally get along quite well with laissez-faire capitalsit scum quite well in comparison to Keynsians, because Keynsians are suffering from ignorance of the realities of the capitalist system while laissez faire capitalists admit to their psychopathic system and most normal humans would most likely have no problems with killing these sick corruptable individuals in a revolutionary situation.

Free Trade is great. For Capital, Just not for humans. Most Economists are either 1) Sick 2) Bought 3) delusional 4) or a mix of the three.

[Klaatu]

"Free Trade" is a lot like free love...would you let someone else fuck your girlfriend (boyfriend)?

Instead of 'free trade,' how about fair trade, with extremely strict rules, so no one gets exploited or hurt?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

let's remember that free trade is not the same thing as laizes faire free market nonsense. free trade is not an economic policy it's a trade policy. obvious has bearing on economic policy. two distinct things i reckon. disclaimer i dont actually know anything about economics.

[RedAtheist]

Says my IPE professor. It was our first class, which he spent discussing the merits of free trade and comparative advantage. He then proceeded to repeatedly declare that almost all economists agree that free trade is the way to go. I kinda figured where his ideological committments lie when he apologized for using the word "class" since it could be construed as a marxist term.

Thoughts on this? How I can I counter?

Ask him whether he thinks Marx was an economist. If he says no, you'll get an idea as to why he would say that almost 100% (he can't even give a proper percentage) of economists support free trade. He might only count free trade supporters as 'real' economists or perhaps he studied economics among free trade supporters and isn't basing his views on an actual studies, but only on his experience talking to economists.

I am glad he apologised for using the word 'class' odds are he used it incorrectly (to refer purely to people's incomes and not to whether or not they owned means of production and thus had power over society.)


You know what is even worst? My economics teacher said that Marxian economics is not real economics! Apparently, economics to him is only the study of capitalist and mixed economies. Something about economics being only about the allocation of goods and services through a competitive and "free" system. That is a bunch of bullshit.

Did you remember to tell your teacher that they obviously knew nothing about Marx, since he did study capitalism. His entire economic theory is basically a critique of it. I am a high schooler and I don't claim have a detailed understanding of Marx's economic theory at all, but even I know more about it than this economic teacher of yours. What annoys me is not so much his/her lack of understanding of Marxism, but this teacher's desire to criticise it despite knowing nothing about it.

Also make sure to point out that this teacher should not be criticising so called socialist societies, because according to him/her that's not part of 'real' economics.

[Dean]

I think you're correct, Dean, that "free trade" is basically but I disagree that it enjoys support among (bourgeois) economists .

Rather, it is because economists like hegel have their head stuck in the clouds. On paper, trade based on comparative advantage does indeed maximize well being. Just as hockey pucks never experience friction. And I do think in a stateless, classless society, communities would be insane not to practice something akin to what economists consider to be abstract free trade.

But we have to understand that economists see free trade agreements as approximating, however woefully inadequately, this idealized state of completely unhindered flow of resources. It's an idiotically naive view but in their defense, these people aren't, by and large, paid to be cultured citizens making nuanced arguments that take into account a wide range of social sciences. Indeed,

You seem to be talking about a kind of Mutualism, or one of the many idealist propertarianisms in this vein. While this characterizes a lot of the ideologues, it bears little relation to the fantasies of people like Paul Krugman who are really the shield-bearers of academic economics in the US. When we are talking about policy wonks, this "ideal state" is summarily discarded (although some of those assumptions may still prevail) and the here and now of market liberalization is truly the central theme.

[Yazman]

Did he say free trade or the free market? Because those are really not the same thing. Even many bourgeois economists and capitalists are not for free trade.

[Anarpest]

"Free Trade" is a lot like free love...would you let someone else fuck your girlfriend (boyfriend)?

Instead of 'free trade,' how about fair trade, with extremely strict rules, so no one gets exploited or hurt?

Because we're not liberals?

[Hit The North]

Ditch economics. It is a pseudo science populated with charlatans.

[gorillafuck]

A large portion of economists exist to provide some semblance of a foundation for bourgeois economies. It's only natural that they would claim to support free trade--that's what their bourgeois supporters want.economists do not write what they write just because they are just told to by their bourgeois supporters. they write what they write because it is in line with capitalist economic laws, which it very often is.


"Free Trade" is a lot like free love...would you let someone else fuck your girlfriend (boyfriend)?this analogy doesn't make sense.

[Geiseric]

I guess Capital isn't enough for some people...

[Rafiq]

They paint us this potrait of mystification, that, of course our 'moral' political branch supports welfare and "big government" while all of the economics wing is composed of the "Realists", the, dare I say "Scientists" who, in the end, are free marketters. Such a portrait almost begs us to respond with: Why do we not listen to these guys?

[Rafiq]

"Free Trade" is a lot like free love...would you let someone else fuck your girlfriend (boyfriend)?

Instead of 'free trade,' how about fair trade, with extremely strict rules, so no one gets exploited or hurt?

Please, this is just flowery Utopianism...

[Positivist]

In league with those "Get-Rich-Quick" schemes one sees on late night TV.

I always say that the quickest way to get rich is to sell books on the quickest way to get rich

[Rafiq]

Ditch economics. It is a pseudo science populated with charlatans.

Marx would disagree...

[ed miliband]

Marx would disagree...

isn't there an important distinction between political economy and the current academic discipline of 'economics' idk

[Rafiq]

isn't there an important distinction between political economy and the current academic discipline of 'economics' idk

I thought he meant analysis of economics in general. Anyway, yes, if you're taking that course and don't require it then gtfo of that class.

[Hit The North]

Marx would disagree...

I wouldn't be too sure that Marx would disagree. He didn't subtitle Capital
'a critique of political economy' for nothing.


isn't there an important distinction between political economy and the current academic discipline of 'economics' idk


I thought he meant analysis of economics in general. Anyway, yes, if you're taking that course and don't require it then gtfo of that class.

No, I meant modern economics as an academic discipline and as a profession. It is way more narrow than political economy. But, as I say above, this doesn't mean that Marx saw himself in the tradition of the political economists.

[o well this is ok I guess]

"Free Trade" is a lot like free love...would you let someone else fuck your girlfriend (boyfriend)? Hell yeah who doesn't want a threesome

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

a lotta people, hippie

[khad]

Hell yeah who doesn't want a threesome
Please keep responses on topic and constructive in the Learning section. You can take this as a verbal warning.