Free Trade Works

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Another chance to open markets and expand trade
Jack Kemp (archive)

March 21, 2005

Most economists agree that free trade benefits all the parties involved eventually. Yes, there are short-run disruptions as economies that were formerly closed to one another begin to interact and trade more freely. Some jobs are displaced and some industries lose the comparative advantage they enjoyed under the protection of being insulated from foreign competition.

Free traders cannot ignore these disruptions because people live in the short run. Even in developed economies such as the United States, many people live from week to week, paycheck to paycheck, where any financial disruption can be a potential disaster. They can't afford to lose their jobs or their businesses for the greater good.

So when, in the short run, more open trade and foreign competition cause some people to lose their jobs and some businesses to fail, an immediate political backlash sets in against free trade. Unless assistance is provided to the short-term losers from more open trade, the sentiment for free trade is easily poisoned. It becomes more difficult to get democratically elected governments to expand trade further, and in some cases intensely concentrated pressure from the short-term losers in the last round of trade-opening agreements succeed in scuttling future rounds, and at times convince the government actually to erect new protectionist barriers.

History clearly demonstrates that countries with open markets who trade freely with other countries experience higher rates of economic growth and higher standards of living. What a tragedy it would be if the long-run prosperity of the nation is mortgaged for some short-term protection. That's why I applaud the Bush administration for doing everything possible to ease the short-term disruption that occurs during the adjustment process after protectionist barriers are lowered and markets are opened.

Since the North America Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 1994, it has been a huge success. According the the Cato Institute, the value of bilateral U.S. trade with Mexico since 1993 has practically tripled, rising from $81 billion to $232 billion. U.S. trade with Mexico is growing twice as fast as U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are now our No. 1 and No. 2 trading partners, respectively. Yet we are still experiencing some of that backlash as the 15-year phaseout of the pre-NAFTA tariffs moves into its final stages.

It's that backlash that motivates much of the opposition to a new free-trade agreement recently negotiated with six of our Central America neighbors - Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua - called the Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA for short.

This opposition exists even though almost 80 percent of products from Central America already enter the United States duty-free, partly because of unilateral preference programs such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences. What's new about CAFTA is that it opens markets to the remaining 20 percent of goods and services, and for the first time opens markets for farm products from the United States.

The economic benefits of CAFTA would be considerable. The United States exports more than $15 billion annually to CAFTA countries. That makes Central America and the Dominican Republic together our 13th-largest export market, larger than Russia, India and Indonesia combined. According to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates CAFTA could expand U.S. farm exports by $1.5 billion a year.
Manufacturers also would benefit, especially in sectors such as information technology products, agricultural and construction equipment, paper products, pharmaceuticals, and medical and scientific equipment.

The potential benefits of freer trade and more open markets are too large to pass up. In addition to CAFTA's direct economic benefits to American consumers and manufacturers, it also offers a huge opportunity to help promote economic growth in the region.

There are substantial political benefits for the United States that flow directly from higher economic growth in the region. More open markets will aid development of the rule of law in our six trading partners that are parties to the agreement and allow for strong rules promoting the protection of intellectual property rights and investment. Greater economic growth will make it easier for the parties to combat the international drug trade. And improved economies in the region will relieve some of the pressure that produces illegal immigration into the United States as people are able to find jobs and start businesses in their home countries where most of them prefer to remain.

CAFTA has been approved by the legislatures in three of the seven countries that are parties to it - El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Others are lining up a vote sometime this spring. Our new trade representative, Rob Portman, has quite an act to follow in former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, but he is up to it. One of his first challenges will be to bring CAFTA up for a vote in Congress by Memorial Day, May 30.

Rather than simply opposing CAFTA, opponents worried about short-term disruption that might be produced by opening the remaining 20 percent of trade between the United States and its Central American neighbors should put ideas on the table to mitigate that disruption. Just saying no to free trade and open markets is not an option anymore.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wow, there goes my family farm . . .
Luckily, now I can get a real job sewing sneakers, that will enable me to die of malnutrition while helping the GDP.

[LSD]

hmm, GDP...terrorism...drug trade...free movement of capital...right, but ....it seems like something's missing....what is it....

OH WAIT!

Living conditions!


Since the North America Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 1994, it has been a huge success. According the the Cato Institute, the value of bilateral U.S. trade with Mexico since 1993 has practically tripled, rising from $81 billion to $232 billion. U.S. trade with Mexico is growing twice as fast as U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are now our No. 1 and No. 2 trading partners, respectively.

So lot's of trade....eh?

Notice no mention of mass-layoffs, lowering of average pay, "race-to-the-bottom" conditions, etc..


There are substantial political benefits for the United States that flow directly from higher economic growth in the region. More open markets will aid development of the rule of law in our six trading partners that are parties to the agreement and allow for strong rules promoting the protection of intellectual property rights and investment.

Which helps ... the US!


Greater economic growth will make it easier for the parties to combat the international drug trade.

Which helps ... the US!


And improved economies in the region will relieve some of the pressure that produces illegal immigration into the United States

Which helps ... the US!


History clearly demonstrates that countries with open markets who trade freely with other countries experience higher rates of economic growth and higher standards of living.

Does it now?

I notice they provide no examples and entirely ignore the experience of...well... all of western Europe, the United States, and Japan.

If history has taught us anything, it's that protectionism works.

Every major economic power in the world today got that way through aggressive control of international trade.


So when, in the short run, more open trade and foreign competition cause some people to lose their jobs and some businesses to fail, an immediate political backlash sets in against free trade.

Perfectly understantable.


Just saying no to free trade and open markets is not an option anymore.

Ah! The classic neo-liberal argument!

Thatcher's TINA, eh?

Well, I guess if Jack Kemp (:lol: :P :lol:) says so, he must be right...


It becomes more difficult to get democratically elected governments to expand trade further, and in some cases intensely concentrated pressure from the short-term losers in the last round of trade-opening agreements succeed in scuttling future rounds, and at times convince the government actually to erect new protectionist barriers.

Damn those "democratically elected governments"!!!

Much better to do what y'all did in Chile and Guatamala. So much easier to deal with then those pesky democracies.


This opposition exists even though almost 80 percent of products from Central America already enter the United States duty-free

um...can you spell non sequitur?

WHO GIVES A FUCK if "products" are entering the US "duty-free" if it isn't actually helping people?

I can tell you that the laid-off worker in Minnisota, and the slave-labourer in Mexico do not!


The potential benefits of freer trade and more open markets are too large to pass up.

I've yet to see one.

[colombiano]

self-righteousness

[New Tolerance]

Yes, you're right, free trade "works", but works for whom?...

Of course, this would not be an issue for you if you are not an utilitarian. (that is not to suggest that I am one)

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

ohhh yes, free trade is such a lovely thing, all those exploited 3rd World people, all that damage to the environment, the job lay off's in the Western nations, the drive to lower wages in Western Nations etc. How great does that sound! What a load of shit.

[cormacobear]

First of all th Cato institute! give me a break. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone here that will take Cato institute statistics as valid without references. These guys have publishedso many lies and propaghanda that their credibility isn't worth a penny.

With excessive integration of markets regions in this case nations lose the ability to provide for all their citicens basic needs. Which means that any disruption anywhere can have long term disasterous results over larger areas and more people.

For example if say Canada's largest trading partner elected a boob and a bunch of rich jerks out to help themselves, who then passed several budgets amounting to trillions of dollars in deficits which results in the ruin of there economy. then Canada, with more than a decades worth of balanced budgets will also see millions laid off and a ruined economy. purely Hypothetical of course..... ;) :angry:

The same situation is true even in less extreme conditions where one regions economy dips as is enevitable in a capitalistic system all regions in a free trade block suffer. Free trade isn't the problem Capitalism and free trade are.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Notice no mention of mass-layoffs, lowering of average pay, "race-to-the-bottom" conditions, etc..


Actually, Kemp's article DID mention layoffs and how a responsible gov't should cushion that blow. As for the rest, why mention it when it doesn't happen? Why bring up something when the facts point to exactly the opposite?




Which helps ... the US!


And the trading nations as well.

3x



I notice they provide no examples and entirely ignore the experience of...well... all of western Europe, the United States, and Japan. If history has taught us anything, it's that protectionism works.

Every major economic power in the world today got that way through aggressive control of international trade. Hint..Hint..the United $tates.


Sorry, but the facts are in disagreement with your assertion.



Perfectly understantable.


Hmmm... first you say no mention of layoffs, then you applaud the suggestion that it be cushioned. Please make up your mind.



Well, I guess if Jack Kemp ( ) says so, he must be right...

Actually it's because Jack Kemp is saying the right things that make them right.



WHO GIVES A FUCK if "products" are entering the US "duty-free" if it isn't actually helping people?


Because it DOES help people when prices are lowered since those products aren't taxed. Benefits the poor moreso than the rich in fact. Brings many products into the realm of affordability that they could not previously afford.



I've yet to see one

You've yet to look at the facts.

[LSD]

Hmmm... first you say no mention of layoffs, then you applaud the suggestion that it be cushioned. Please make up your mind.

My mind is quite made up.

Perhaps you are confused.

It is "perfectly understandable" that when "more open trade and foreign competition cause some people to lose their jobs and some businesses to fail, an immediate political backlash sets in against free trade."

Comprehend?


Actually it's because Jack Kemp is saying the right things that make them right.

The quote I was referring to was:

"Just saying no to free trade and open markets is not an option anymore."

That is a classic assetion. And an easily disprovable one at that.

Clearly, it is possible to "opt out" of the "global economy", Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding.


As for the rest, why mention it when it doesn't happen? Why bring up something when the facts point to exactly the opposite?

Ah, assertions again.

You (and Jack Kemp) say it doesn't happen, so it must not happen.

Except... it does.

from the Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us)


And the trading nations as well. 3x

Really?

"There are substantial political benefits for the United States that flow directly from higher economic growth in the region. More open markets will aid development of the rule of law in our six trading partners that are parties to the agreement and allow for strong rules promoting the protection of intellectual property rights and investment."

Riiight... all those Chillean "intelectual property" holders...

"Greater economic growth will make it easier for the parties to combat the international drug trade."

This actually hurts farmers in the third world, the only people it helps are the bureaucrats at the ONDCP.

"And improved economies in the region will relieve some of the pressure that produces illegal immigration into the United States"

That one speaks for itself.


Because it DOES help people when prices are lowered since those products aren't taxed. Benefits the poor moreso than the rich in fact. Brings many products into the realm of affordability that they could not previously afford.

What about the "market"?
Whatever the 'Market' will bear, right?

Reduction of import taxation tends to help distributors and retail outlets.

Besides, since free trade has lead to a general wage depression and increase in unenmployment, affordibility goes down.

NAFTA's Impact on the States (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_impactstates)


Sorry, but the facts are in disagreement with your assertion.

You've yet to look at the facts.

Except neither you nor the article provide any facts.

I understand that its an amateur paper, but it cites no sources, backs up no claims, and justifies no argument!

Its a collection of assertions and asssumptions with zero evidence and you think I need to do additional research?

If there's someone in this equation who needs to learn how to proform seiours research, it's Mr. Jack "no citations" Kemp!

[Sabocat]

I understand that its an amateur paper, but it cites no sources, backs up no claims, and justifies no argument!

Yeah, but..but....Jack Kemp was a professional NFL Quarterback!.....that means he's credible....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2005, 09:10 PM

Every major economic power in the world today got that way through aggressive control of international trade. Hint..Hint..the United $tates.


Sorry, but the facts are in disagreement with your assertion.
I heard a funny story about the US dumping subsidized grain on Colombia forcing its farmers to switch to cocaine production . . . oh, wait, that's not funny.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

To true, you can even see it going to back to the late 1800's early 1900's, just look at the trade conducted by USA, Britain, France etc. which the Qing dynasty China, destroyed all its household industries through cheap imports and used agressive control to themselves and their countries governments rich in the process.

But hell, there is an easy way to show that free trade doesn't work. Just go down to Mexico or one of many other 3'rd world countries and you see the squalor they live in which is greatly due to the fact that their countries are exploited by larger nations like the US through free trade. It is all well and good to say free trade workd from the cushiony existance in a nive western nation with your cushy job but it is an entirely different thing to talk that way from poverty in the 3'rd world.

[bur372]

Every major economic power in the world today got that way through aggressive control of international trade. Hint..Hint..the United $tates.

Sorry, but the facts are in disagreement with your assertion.

The U$ has enough power (capital actually) to boycott any decision the IMF makes. Thirld world debt being written off america says no and it does not happen.

Oh of course Third World debt that was made by free trade. Profit could be huge because the third world countries had oil commerical banks were in for a killing especially after recession in the "economic North" due to high energy costs Because of cheap exchange rates borrowing money seemed like a great idea you could just borrow and borrow. What happens? http://www.columban.com/debt.htm

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:21 PM
Just go down to Mexico or one of many other 3'rd world countries and you see the squalor they live in which is greatly due to the fact that their countries are exploited by larger nations like the US through free trade.
The "third world" was in squalor to begin with. Free trade did not cause this problem.

[bur372]

Free trade increased the gap between the rich in the poor. In Dubai a place with many five six and one seven star hotel, artifical islands etc. Construction workers are working in labour camps (ask redstar for the link its from the BBC)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 09:00 PM
Free trade increased the gap between the rich in the poor.
That doesn't matter. The poor aren't any worse off

[LSD]

The poor aren't any worse off

Except... they are!

Wages have been driven down, as have labour rights, and working conditions.Oh! and here's something I noticed you didn't provide, a source (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us)!


That doesn't matter.

Ah! The spirit of capitalism at last!

Most of the poor deserve their fate and the rest....eh, fuck 'em.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

while the 3'rd worls had a lower living standard before free trade, it was still better off because cheap imports that occur due to free trade have, in effect, destroyed many traditional industries and production which has taken away the small money the people actually had. Hell, Australia is about to be fucked over by the US free trade deal and we are a western nation with a relatively strong economy, but no, the US doesn't care because it always gets the better end of these bargains, everytime because it simply intimidates, threatens and brides nations to enter them.

Ohh, and about 'not mattering' that the gap between rich and poor has increased and the poor have become poorer, how would you like it if you ended up on the wrong side of this problem? Of course you wouldn't like it, no one does, but somehow you seem to think its fine for the mexicans to have to endure it. Really proves humans are such fucking compasionate animals.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Mar 26 2005, 09:38 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Mar 26 2005, 09:38 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 09:00 PM
Free trade increased the gap between the rich in the poor.
That doesn't matter. The poor aren't any worse off [/b]
Actually, many of the poor could traditionally supply their own food, and make some degree of small profit trading within local markets. However, specialization has undermined the ability of peasentry to sustain themselves, meaning not only are they now poor, they're now poor and proletarianized. Woo.

[bur372]

America exploit others to get richer but when their exploting ideas come back to exploit them they suddenly become very protectist.

Good to know they have the spirit of capatalisim in them not just the spirit of freedom and democracy.

[EneME]

That doesn't matter. The poor aren't any worse off
It doesn't matter to YOU because it doesn't affect YOU. Out of sight, out of mind I guess... I've always wanted to ask a cappie this, but how do you justify to yourself being so INDIFFERENT to the suffering of other people? Just because you don't have any connection to south of the border does not mean they DO NOT EXIST.

And yes the poor ARE worse off, unlike the poor in the US: there are no soup lines in 3rd world countries in rural villages, no salvation army with free clothes, there are no county "clinics" for health services, there is no SSI or disability, they can't even afford the 1$ mcchicken at fuckin mcdonalds! eventhough they're working 16 hours a DAY.


The "third world" was in squalor to begin with. Free trade did not cause this problem.
So why is it that with over a decade of NAFTA, Mexico is hardly economically progressing at all? If "FREE TRADE" is the robitussin of poverty why are there so many people running across US borders for JOBS....


Growth in Mexico over the past 10 years has been a bleak 1 percent on a per capita basis — better than in much of the rest of Latin America, but far poorer than earlier in the century. From 1948 to 1973, Mexico grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent per capita... And while the hope was that Nafta would reduce income disparities between the United States and its southern neighbor, in fact they have grown — by 10.6 percent in the last decade. Meanwhile, there has been disappointing progress in reducing poverty in Mexico, where real wages have been falling at the rate of 0.2 percent a year.Source (http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2004/0106stiglitznafta.htm)

The reality of CAFTA:


All the same issues human and labor rights organizations have with NAFTA (and FTAA) are present in CAFTA, including:

*Secrecy Instead of Transparency: No formal public input or oversight in the negotiations.
*Corporate Domination Over Democracy: At the expense of democracy and people's right to self-rule, CAFTA would likely give corporations powers to object to barriers to free trade, including laws people enact for their own protection. For example, NAFTA established the right for companies to sue governments over public-interest laws that may limit their profits. This right has been employed 27 times by companies since 1994.
*Increased Inequality: A minority of rich companies and wealthy stockholders will benefit from reduced costs. The poor will get poorer and more people will move into poverty: workers will get lower pay and lose their jobs while shouldering higher costs of living as more services are privatized.
*Disappearing Public Services: Resources such as education, health care, energy, and water utilities owned by everyone in a community will more likely become owned by corporations. This could put essential public services out of the hands of many people. For example, When Bolivia privatized its water utility, water rates increased 200 percent, leading to riots that resulted in six deaths.
*Reduced Labor Rights: Labor laws such as those that protest worker's safety can also be challenged and the "race to the bottom" for pay will likely hurt workers in all countries involved in CAFTA.
*Negative Agricultural Impact: Increased corporate domination of farms and possible devastation of family farms and farmers in the US and Central America.
*Environmental Destruction: Environmental laws are just one types of barriers to trade that can be gutted. This decreases costs to companies but increases costs to local communities which suffer more health problems as a result of pollution. Source (http://www.stopcafta.org/article.php?list=type&type=2)

For additional info on CAFTA :
Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/indexagreement.htm)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:37 PM

That doesn't matter. The poor aren't any worse off
It doesn't matter to YOU because it doesn't affect YOU.
It doesn't affect them either. As I have said, they are no worse off.


And yes the poor ARE worse off,

Cite.


So why is it that with over a decade of NAFTA, Mexico is hardly economically progressing at all? If "FREE TRADE" is the robitussin of poverty why are there so many people running across US borders for JOBS....

You mean that free trade isn't working because people are running to another country that has a higher degree of it ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Ohh, and about 'not mattering' that the gap between rich and poor has increased and the poor have become poorer, how would you like it if you ended up on the wrong side of this problem?

The poor haven't become poorer regardless of the inequality.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 26 2005, 09:55 PM

The poor aren't any worse off

Except... they are!


Not. (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-010.pdf)



That doesn't matter.

Ah! The spirit of capitalism at last!

Most of the poor deserve their fate and the rest....eh, fuck 'em.

True. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2732)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Oh, Moneybags.
Let me guess, CATO is dead on, and Oxfam (oxfam.org, I trust in yr ability to find the many relevent documents) is an evil front for commies?

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 26 2005, 02:57 PM

The "third world" was in squalor to begin with. Free trade did not cause this problem.
Quality of life is based on the ability to meet Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Every single central and southern american country had a higher rating under an agrarian economy than they do now. That rating has declined as a capitalist economy took hold. The average quality of life has declined in every central and southern american country with the exception of Cuba. They were better off according to the international stabdard used prior to the introduction of capitalism in every country of the world except those that embraced socialism. FACT.


Capitalism Bad, socialism better. Fact

[Andy Bowden]

This article deals with Pakistan when my party's (The SSP) policy coordinator Alan Mccombes visited Pakistan during the NATO bombing of Afghanistan. A lot of it is a bit irrelevant for this debate - it mostly deals with the Pakistani left, but I found the beginning of the 4th paragraph a good rebuttal of the capitalist measure of "progress".

http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.net/paki...Pakistan13.html (http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.net/pakistan/Pakistan13.html)

"Measured in pure economic statistics, Pakistan is far from being the poorest country in the world. According to the CIA, it's gross domestic product - the total value of all goods and services produced - is $2000 per head. This is higher than Cuba which has a GDP of $1700.
Yet infant mortality rates are 10 times higher in Pakistan than in Cuba. Life expectancy in Cuba is 15 years longer than in Pakistan.
In Pakistan the literacy rate is just 42% - and just 29% for women. In Cuba literacy rate is 96% for both men and women. In Pakistan, 40% of children are malnourished and 270, 000 children die every year from malnutrition. In Cuba, malnourishment is virtually unknown.
In Pakistan, there is one phone line for every 50 people; in Cuba there is one phone line for every 20 people. In Pakistan there is one television set for every 50 people; in Cuba there is one TV for every 4 people. There are 171 airports in Cuba compared to 111 in Pakistan - even though Pakistan is 7 times larger and 11 times more populous.
These comparative statistics are not provided for the purpose of glorifying the political system in Cuba, but to expose the fraudulent deception that equates free market capitalism with dynamism, progress and efficiency"

[LSD]

It doesn't affect them either. As I have said, they are no worse off.

Cite.

Here you go. (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us)


True.

Wow, a nonacademic uncited CATO oppinion piece. :lol:

You must be getting desperate.


Not.

Dspite its self-congratulatory tone, that article doesn't actually defend any of your claims. Aside from showing an increase in "GDP", it doesn't give any other time-change statistics and it simply brushes off low wages and working conditions as cultural differences and not that bad. It completely ignores the affect of free trade on workers in developed countries.

This piece basically toutes that "economic markers" have improved, but ignoring the fact that this has had zero affect on the poor of these countries, except to make them poorer.

Neoliberal econonmic is bullshit. GDP, GNP, capital flow, PI, Aggregate Supply, Transitional Supply... Andy Bowden, above, provided a very relevent example on Pakistan. The article is dead on in that someone has been helped by the improvement of capital rights in these countries. I wonder who that could be...

hmm....could it be...... people with capital?

Ah! But there's a word for those people isn't there: The rich.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 26 2005, 02:57 PM

The "third world" was in squalor to begin with. Free trade did not cause this problem.
Quality of life is based on the ability to meet Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Every single central and southern american country had a higher rating under an agrarian economy than they do now. That rating has declined as a capitalist economy took hold. The average quality of life has declined in every central and southern american country with the exception of Cuba. They were better off according to the international stabdard used prior to the introduction of capitalism in every country of the world except those that embraced socialism. FACT.


Capitalism Bad, socialism better. Fact

By that logic, a medieval serf must have had a better life than a modern worker (well, at least until he died of the plague or his master killed him off) because the former lived in an agrarian economy while the latter doesn't.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cock[email protected] 27 2005, 12:22 PM
Oh, Moneybags.
Let me guess, CATO is dead on, and Oxfam (oxfam.org, I trust in yr ability to find the many relevent documents) is an evil front for commies?
Correct. Oxfam is full 'o shit. Go to their central offices sometime if you like and count the Rolls Royces.

[cormacobear]

The average quality of life including life expectancy was higher prior to the industrial revolution than during the industrial revolution. And certainly if you exclude the advances in medicine, an argument could be made that the average quality of life of the medevil agrarian serf is higher than the average now, they certainly controled a greater portion of their society's wealth than the average person does now. That based on the fact that there is more power in fewer hands now than at any time since the Later Roman empire.

[TheKwas]

Even though I may be straying from the average Anarchist viewpoint, Free Trade is a thousand times better than protectionism.

However, since this thread isn't even about "true" free trade, but instead about "NAFTA-style/globalization free trade", which is really just 1st protectionism meanwhile forcing 3rd world countries to open their markets in the name of "free trade", I'm not even going to bother replying.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It is "perfectly understandable" that when "more open trade and foreign competition cause some people to lose their jobs and some businesses to fail, an immediate political backlash sets in against free trade."

Completely. You'll focus on the negative aspects of a policy and ignore the positive aspects of it.




That is a classic assertion. And an easily disprovable one at that. Clearly, it is possible to "opt out" of the "global economy", Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding.


Of course it is POSSIBLE... it is simply defeatist and stupid to do so.



Riiight... all those Chillean "intelectual property" holders...


Ever consider that there presently aren't many Chillean intellectual property owners could be due to them NOT protecting it now? Start protecting it, and they might start up. When they do and are rewarded for it, it will spread in significantly improve their economy. That's a good thing, by the way.


From your link:


Trade agreement results in job losses, growing inequality, and wage suppression for the United States

Funny. With all of this wage suppression for the US, you'd think there'd be LESS inequality. The chart of data similarly shows that all three nations have lost jobs. Hmmm... doesn't seem likely that attributing losses in all three nations to a policy that applies ONLY to those three nations. In other words... it couldn't POSSIBLY be that other factors are involved in said job losses.

Sorry... the data says other wise. Continuing increases in standards of living in all three nations points towards NAFTA working.

Similarly look at it this way. Economic activity is also called trade. Restrict trade artificially and you are restricting the economy. Restrict the economy and jobs and pay are not allowed to expand to what they otherwise could.

Also... it might do your writers to attempt to look at the other side of the one sided coins they are looking at. If they are going to quote how many jobs and potential jobs have been lost by our nation to NAFTA it is only intellectually honest to look at how many have been created by NAFTA. Pity they didn't do so.

THIS article seems to be a bit more balanced:
Source (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/libra...20economy')


The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed by President
George Bush on December 17, 1992, has been in effect since January 1994. After
eight years of implementation, the full effects of NAFTA on the U.S. economy are
still unclear. There are numerous indications that NAFTA has achieved many of the
trade and economic benefits that proponents claimed it would bring, although there
have been adjustment costs. However, there is not enough evidence to quantify the
impacts on specific U.S. industries. Some studies show that the agreement has had
an overall positive effect on the U.S. economy, but that some industries have
experienced losses. As the United States considers further free trade initiatives with
Latin American countries, the effects of NAFTA may provide policymakers some
indication of how these initiatives might affect U.S. industries and the overall U.S.
economy.
Most of the trade effects related to NAFTA are due to changes in U.S. trade and
investment patterns with Mexico. At the time of NAFTA implementation, the U.S.-
Canada Free Trade Agreement already had been in effect for five years and some
industries in the United States and Canada were already highly integrated. Since
NAFTA, the automotive, textile, and apparel industries have experienced some of the
more significant changes in trade flows, which may also have affected U.S.
employment in these industries. U.S. trade with Mexico has increased considerably
more than U.S. trade with other countries, and Mexico has become a more significant
trading partner with the United States since NAFTA implementation. Consequently,
Mexico’s share of total U.S. trade has increased while that of other countries has
decreased. Some data on U.S. imports suggest that Mexico may be supplying the
U.S. market with goods that may have otherwise been supplied by Asian countries.
Not all changes in trade patterns since 1994, however, can be attributed to
NAFTA because trade was also affected by other unrelated economic factors such as
economic growth in the United States and Mexico, and currency fluctuations. Also,
trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA may have accelerated trends that
were ongoing prior to NAFTA and may not be totally attributable to the trade
agreement.

[LSD]

Ever consider that there presently aren't many Chillean intellectual property owners could be due to them NOT protecting it now? Start protecting it, and they might start up.

Two points on this.

1) That's entirely hypothetical and even if true it would take decades. Meanwhile the US will be flooding the market and US companies will be "buying" those copyrights.

2) "intellectual property" is a meaningless bullshit concept. It isnnot in the interest of the third world to start recognizing or protecting it. It is in the interests of the US, of course.


When they do and are rewarded for it, it will spread in significantly improve their economy. That's a good thing, by the way

...for the rich.


Funny. With all of this wage suppression for the US, you'd think there'd be LESS inequality.

What??

If the poor get poorer the difference between rich and poor increases ...of course.


THIS article seems to be a bit more balanced:

Because it says nothing! :lol:


Of course it is POSSIBLE... it is simply defeatist and stupid to do so.

Not if you want to keep your job.

[cormacobear]

I'm not entirely against trade agreements vetween nations, however raising the working satndards, including wage to that of the highest of participating countries should be a requirement of any deal.

[Professor Moneybags]

What happened to my post ?

[NovelGentry]

What happened to my post ?


I had to reboot the server at a point for an unknown reason -- could have been stuck in a mysql queue to be written to the DB when I rebooted and was lost in memory before it got written.

I would apologize.... but no sympathy for capitalists.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

1) That's entirely hypothetical and even if true it would take decades. Meanwhile the US will be flooding the market and US companies will be "buying" those copyrights.


I'm not the one who essentially made fun of Chilleans having no intellectual property to protect. Besides... "decades" is also purely speculative and probably wrong.

I saw a news report (on the MSM) after the fall of Bagdad of this one town in Iraq that was absolutely taking off economically speaking. Markets were popping up all over the place, product was readily available, unemployment was dropping like a rock. What set THIS town apart from other towns? The mayor STRONGLY enforced rule of law and property rights. It didn't take decades. It took weeks.



2) "intellectual property" is a meaningless bullshit concept. It isn't in the interest of the third world to start recognizing or protecting it. It is in the interests of the US, of course.


Intellectual property being a meaningless concept is, frankly, your opinion. And it is in the interest of ALL to protect it.




...for the rich.


Nope. For all.




What??

If the poor get poorer the difference between rich and poor increases ...of course.


The inequality being spoken of in the article was the inequality between the US and Mexico.



Because it says nothing!


Nope... because it gives both sides of the story and gives data to support it while ignoring nothing. Quite a contrast with your article that does nothing but present bias in order to present a political point of view.




Not if you want to keep your job.

I HAVE my job because of free trade and INsourcing from other nations.

[LSD]

I'm not the one who essentially made fun of Chilleans having no intellectual property to protect.

I wasn't "making fun" of the Chilleans any more that pointing out that the US slaughtered the Native Americans.

Chille doesn't own many "copyrights" or "patents", certainly nothing compared to the US. That isn't "making fun", its an undisputed fact.


Intellectual property being a meaningless concept is, frankly, your opinion.

Its common sense really.

The idea of a thought or concept being "owned" is even more ridiculous than material "property rights". What, I own an idea because I "thought of it first", or register it first?


And it is in the interest of ALL to protect it [intelectual property rights].

Why?


The inequality being spoken of in the article was the inequality between the US and Mexico.

Oh, and this inequality is good?

Surely you must understand that by definition growing inequality means that one group is gaining more and more in relation to the other group. That's what inequality means.

Are you suggesting that this inequality is solely cauised by the US getting rich and in no way by Mexio getting poor? Where do you think all this additional US wealth is comming from?


Nope... because it gives both sides of the story and gives data to support it while ignoring nothing. Quite a contrast with your article that does nothing but present bias in order to present a political point of view.

"There is not enough evidence to quantify the impacts on specific U.S. industries"

"Not all changes in trade patterns since 1994, however, can be attributed to NAFTA because trade was also affected by other unrelated economic factors such as economic growth in the United States and Mexico, and currency fluctuations. Also, trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA may have accelerated trends that were ongoing prior to NAFTA and may not be totally attributable to the trade agreement."

Lot's of "big words", little content.

But you do gotta love that the article you chose to defend your claim that NAFTA is good was one which, effectively says "we don't know". If that's the most supportive piece you could find, it speaks volumes as to NAFTA's failure.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Chille doesn't own many "copyrights" or "patents", certainly nothing compared to the US. That isn't "making fun", it's an undisputed fact.

In other words... they can't POSSIBLY have the intellectual capacity to BEGIN to have some if said intellectual property rights were actually protected.



The idea of a thought or concept being "owned" is even more ridiculous than material "property rights". What, I own an idea because I "thought of it first", or register it first?


Again... all your opinion. What is undisputed fact is that when property rights start being protected, economic prosperity takes off and poverty declines.



Why?


See above.



Oh, and this inequality is good?


No... nor did I say it was.



Are you suggesting that this inequality is solely caused by the US getting rich and in no way by Mexio getting poor? Where do you think all this additional US wealth is coming from?


It's coming from the pie growing in size and therefore having more money to distribute to all.




Lot's of "big words", little content.


Well of course... you only quoted 79 words of an 8900 word document. Pretty easy to criticize an article as empty when you only pay attention to less than 1% of it.



But you do gotta love that the article you chose to defend your claim that NAFTA is good was one which, effectively says "we don't know". If that's the most supportive piece you could find, it speaks volumes as to NAFTA's failure.

Actually, quite the opposite. It shows that I'm willing to present an article that is fair, balanced and presents BOTH arguments... as opposed to the biased article that you linked to.

[LSD]

In other words... they can't POSSIBLY have the intellectual capacity to BEGIN to have some if said intellectual property rights were actually protected.

Again, I never said anything of the sort. But even taking a look at all the countries currently following neo-liberal trade practices shows us that none of them have nearly the number of "intellectual property" claims as the US.

The US simply has more to begin with and has the reserve cash to buy more than any other country on earth, certainly more than a third world country.


It's coming from the pie growing in size and therefore having more money to distribute to all.

And where is all this extra pie-filling comming from? I know that "wealth creation" is a popular idea on the right, but practically speaking, resources / __ have to come from somewhere! if we're only talking about reforming trade between a set number of countires (and remember, there already is trade anyways), all that can really occur is redistribution with some minor increases (or decreases, actually) in general wealth caused by redundancies and efficiencies produced by merging economies.


Well of course... you only quoted 79 words of an 8900 word document. Pretty easy to criticize an article as empty when you only pay attention to less than 1% of it.

What, did you mant me to quote the whole thing?

I highlighted selective senctions that I though were representative of the entire piece, if you disagree, show me parts of that article that actually make a point.


Actually, quite the opposite. It shows that I'm willing to present an article that is fair, balanced and presents BOTH arguments... as opposed to the biased article that you linked to.

Hardly!

In the past you've shown no reluctance to use biased or partisan articles, and I highly doubt that you've had a "change of heart" and now will only cite the painfully neutral.


Again... all your opinion. What is undisputed fact is that when property rights start being protected, economic prosperity takes off and poverty declines.

Well...it's complicated. Obviously, if you're running a capitalist economy and are not protecting property "rights" then your economy won't hold. Capitalism is based on putting capital and property above all else, and so trying to run a market economy without acknowledging property is impossible. But, this does not mean that property rights are at all nescessary, merely nescessary for captalism, and even within this system we can see that while, often time, economies are helped by such protections, people are not.

Intellectual "property" of medicines, of vaccines, of seeds, of plants, etc... are killing people every day. Sure the economies are helped because companies are getting rich and US branch plants are oppening like may flowers, but the people (mainly the poor as per usual) are worse off then ever.


No... nor did I say it was.

So, do you acknowledge this is a harmful cost of neo-liberal "free trade"?

[Wiesty]

free trade licks gooch

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:35 AM
free trade licks gooch
You make a lot of profound comments.

In all seriousness, have you ever posted anything besides the slogans you paint on your fun little signs?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The US simply has more to begin with and has the reserve cash to buy more than any other country on earth, certainly more than a third world country.


So let's keep everyone else down by not protecting their rights? Again... your argument either makes no sense or is downright insulting to other nations' intelligence.



And where is all this extra pie-filling comming from?



Productivity. Basic Economics 101.



What, did you mant me to quote the whole thing?


No... but there was plenty of data in the article and you make it sound like it was void of facts.



Hardly!

In the past you've shown no reluctance to use biased or partisan articles, and I highly doubt that you've had a "change of heart" and now will only cite the painfully neutral.


No... I've presented articles that either: express my point of view better than I can, or contain facts within opinion articles that are under or unreported. I've done the same thing here.

The anti-NAFTA crowd is so busy screaming that all is gloom and doom (and getting air time from the press for doing so) that the facts are hardly believeable to the masses. In other words... same old same old.



But, this does not mean that property rights are at all nescessary, merely nescessary for captalism, and even within this system we can see that while, often time, economies are helped by such protections, people are not.

Intellectual "property" of medicines, of vaccines, of seeds, of plants, etc... are killing people every day. Sure the economies are helped because companies are getting rich and US branch plants are oppening like may flowers, but the people (mainly the poor as per usual) are worse off than ever.

You have a real knack for ignoring the vast forrest you're standing in, so that you can point at the large oak that you choose to look at.

First of all, protecting property rights has advanced nations out of poverty. Capitalism is the tool that brought about such advancement. To say, "oh well sure... if you want a Capitalist society" and imply that such a society is bad when the standard of living for all has clearly been raised ignores that the standard of living was raised for all.

Secondly, those medicines and seeds might not be getting to every single person on the planet (usually because of the socio-political system that they happen to live under) but you conveniently ignore that had the intellectual property rights not been protected from the get go, those seeds and medicines probably would not have been invented at all. When they aren't developed in the first place, vast MILLIONS are affected rather than the stark few one the far left of the bell curve.

You want to ignore that when the economies are improved, the vast majority of peoples' lives are improved as well.


free trade licks gooch

Moron!

[cormacobear]

Allowing the introduction of large scale industry into densely populated third world countries without requiring industries administrators to meet the same high standards for working conditions and enviornmental standards is irrisponsible.

In India, Asia, and a dozen central American countries billions live and work in conditions that would appall even the workers of Englands industrial Revolution. Many haveing had a higher quality of life prior to the introduction of western style industry.

We are in an enviornmental crises, we are running out of places to put our garbage, Smog days cost thousands of lives every year. We are just getting industry here to start meeting the minimal enviornmental standard necescary to sustain life in the West, how can we knowingly allow industry to poison other enviornments knowing full well the cost in lives, and the long term costs of clean up.

[LSD]

So let's keep everyone else down by not protecting their rights?

No, let's bring everyone else up by enacting social programs that actually help them rather than the US which is all that protecting intellectual property rights will do.

Do I know if in 25 years, the kind of program you outline will lead to a market increase in third world intellectual property holdings? No, but I doubt it. The US has such a commanding dominance in the industries in question that it strikes me as unlikely that people in these countries will be able to overcome it (and before you accuse me of racism again, for economic not racial/ethnic reasons).

Again, its possible that the kind of protection you advocate will help them... personally I think it unlikely. But either way we're talking about decades. There are far more important things we can do today!!


Productivity. Basic Economics 101.

So..."productivity" is increasing.

Why?
When?
How?
By how much?

Just saying it doesn't make it so. Increasing capital movement hasn't increased "productivity", its just increased capital movement.


No... but there was plenty of data in the article and you make it sound like it was void of facts.

Not devoid of facts, devoid of a point! While there were occasional statistics, the article made absolutely no point and concluded that ...we don't know.


No... I've presented articles that either: express my point of view better than I can, or contain facts within opinion articles that are under or unreported. I've done the same thing here.

If that article "expresses your point of view" then I must conclude that you don't have one.


First of all, protecting property rights has advanced nations out of poverty. Capitalism is the tool that brought about such advancement. To say, "oh well sure... if you want a Capitalist society" and imply that such a society is bad when the standard of living for all has clearly been raised ignores that the standard of living was raised for all.

...compared with what?

Feualism?
Mercantilism?

Yes, capitalism is better than many alternatives, but that does not mean that it is the best alternative available.

Besides which, we were talking about intellectual property rights which have only been a feature of capitalism for, what, 100 years? 120 tops? So, the rapid increase in standard of living in the first world, which largely occured in the 18th and very early 19th centuries cannot be attributed to the protection of "intellectual property".


Secondly, those medicines and seeds might not be getting to every single person on the planet (usually because of the socio-political system that they happen to live under) but you conveniently ignore that had the intellectual property rights not been protected from the get go, those seeds and medicines probably would not have been invented at all. When they aren't developed in the first place, vast MILLIONS are affected rather than the stark few one the far left of the bell curve.

Assumption.

The smallpox vaccine was developed, tested, and mass produced centuries before "intellectual property" existed. The same for countless other medicines. Despite the propaganda of the Drug Companies, medicine did fine before "intellectual property" and it will do fine afterwards.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:43 PM
Allowing the introduction of large scale industry into densely populated third world countries without requiring industries administrators to meet the same high standards for working conditions and enviornmental standards is irrisponsible.


Get on a plane and take that up with their national governments.

My guess is that, assuming your parents lent you enough money and you actually found the balls to do it, the response would be something along the lines of,

"Boy, you know nothing of our local economy or our people. You come from United States where economy already developed - have all the opportunity you want. Here, we have nothing. We can either fish or grow rice. Bad season, we starve. Factory here give us jobs, we buy food when we can't grow it. We not make as much as American worker but we finally have something besides mud hut and cold fish for dinner."

[cormacobear]

There's nothing wrong with foriegn investment even lower wages, but working conditions, and enviornmental standards must be universal.

And of course asking there governments is sufficient because the countries we're discussing have the best democratic credentials so we know they speak in the best interests of the people.

That was Sarcasm by the way

[Wiesty]

alright then, lets take a look at free trade, easily explained for u dumb cappies

china can make a candy bar for 10 cents, america can make it for 30

so america fires every single one of their workers and marches over to china and uses their factories and exploits their workers to make a measly dollar

fair trade is way better

[red_orchestra]

You know, most Canadians think Free Trade is nothing more than a joke dreamed up by Corperate America. Free Trade is only free for Americans...
and trade partners, well, lets see:...they get left in the cold. Look at the Softwood lumber dispute...and tell me if that is "free trade".

what a bunch of fuckin' nonesense.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:43 PM
We are in an enviornmental crises, we are running out of places to put our garbage,


Is that why you post yours here ? :P


We are just getting industry here to start meeting the minimal enviornmental standard necescary to sustain life in the West,

If that's the case, how come life still exists in the west ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:44 PM
fair trade is way better
Free trade is fair.

[red_orchestra]

Sure its fair...if your a citizen of the USA. if not, your screwed.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:28 PM
Sure its fair...if your a citizen of the USA. if not, your screwed.
Why is it unfair ?

[Wiesty]

because there is no god damn requirement! it can be a shitty piece of plastic and u make chinese slave for them in a shop and them u sell them at a stupid price. Fair trade has something called Standard

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Mar 31 2005, 09:42 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Mar 31 2005, 09:42 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 09:28 PM
Sure its fair...if your a citizen of the USA. if not, your screwed.
Why is it unfair ? [/b]
Common...Prof. look at the "free trade issue" with US vs Canada softwood lumber. If that doesn't clearly show the onesidedness of "free-trade" then I don't know what does.

Common, Free Trade is free for the Americans but not so for anyone else.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:44 PM
alright then, lets take a look at free trade, easily explained for u dumb cappies

china can make a candy bar for 10 cents, america can make it for 30

so america fires every single one of their workers and marches over to china and uses their factories and exploits their workers to make a measly dollar

fair trade is way better
Having something explained to me by a 14 year-old that I've studied at the college level since he was 6 is an entertaining way to start the morning.

Your problem is that before, those Chinese workers were making 5 cents per candy bar, so they are better off by 5 cents.

The candy bar is now 20 cents cheaper in the United States, so consumers are better off.

The workers fired from the American candy bar factory go get new jobs at the American computer factory, which has jobs available because a new technology has emerged and so the workers have moved on to a more technologically-advanced position.

Either that or they find another job in another field.


Try to explain this to your buddies in social studies, ace.

[LSD]

Your problem is that before, those Chinese workers were making 5 cents per candy bar, so they are better off by 5 cents.

Except that instead of their labour going to support local industry and profits being recycled to help their internal economy, the money goes to the United States to buy the CEO a new desk. So while some workers temporarily get higher pay, the country / society suffers.


The candy bar is now 20 cents cheaper in the United States, so consumers are better off.

Except instead of the product being "20 cents cheaper", the company makes 20 cents more profit on each sale.


The workers fired from the American candy bar factory go get new jobs at the American computer factory, which has jobs available because a new technology has emerged and so the workers have moved on to a more technologically-advanced position.

Except....no!

Firstly, higher technological jobs require training and experience, there is no assurance that laid off workers will be able to compete for those jobs, especially if they're older.

Secondly, don't assume that the emergence of new technological jobs will conincide with layoffs. They often don't! Both temporally and geographically, workers who lose their jobs often find themself....jobless.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

No, let's bring everyone else up by enacting social programs that actually help them rather than the US which is all that protecting intellectual property rights will do.

Quite the opposite. Your logic ends with essentially taxing ourselves to prosperity. Efficiency shortfalls alone dictate that can't happen. Protecting intellectual and hard property rights ensures that other nations peoples will actually get involved in bettering themselves. When a person from another nation patents something, we can't steal it. Don't know why you'd be against such a concept.




Do I know if in 25 years, the kind of program you outline will lead to a market increase in third world intellectual property holdings?

Human nature says... yes. So does history.




The US has such a commanding dominance in the industries in question that it strikes me as unlikely that people in these countries will be able to overcome it (and before you accuse me of racism again, for economic not racial/ethnic reasons).

When did I accuse you of racism? Don't recall doing such a thing. All I accused you of is saying that people outside the US aren't capable of coming up with anything that might be worth protecting. That's pretty much what you're continuing to say here. One does not need to have economic success to be able to come up with something worth protecting. In fact... history pretty much demonstrates that the opposite is true. You know... that whole necessity is the mother of invention type of thing. I'd bet Edison would agree with me.




But either way we're talking about decades. There are far more important things we can do today.

Wrong again. Windows didn't take decades to develope. It only took the idea.




So..."productivity" is increasing.

Well... yes, productivity is increasing, but that was not what I said in answer to your question. You asked how the pie can grow and I answered with productivity. In other words, I can dig oil or ore out of the ground, but until I process it into something useful (by productivity) I haven't added anything to the economy, other than make what was once under the ground now over the ground. In other words... I HAVE added value to it. Processing it further adds MORE value to it, and in the process ADDS to the general value (read: wealth) of society.




Why?
When?
How?
By how much?

Because.
All the time.
By adding value to society.
Depends on the particular product involved.



Just saying it doesn't make it so.


Sorta like saying just because you drop a rock this time, on Earth, that the next time it won't fall. Logic says otherwise.



Increasing capital movement hasn't increased "productivity", its just increased capital movement.

Again, you misread my answer. Productivity adds to the pie by expanding the economy and in turn the available wealth.




Not devoid of facts, devoid of a point. While there were occasional statistics, the article made absolutely no point and concluded that ...we don't know.

I concluded that the jury is still out, but that there are points to be made by both sides that are legitimate. Unlike your article that only concentrates on negative news while ignoring any facts to the contrary.





If that article "expresses your point of view" then I must conclude that you don't

Not terribly surprising that you would take a completely clear statement and completely misread it. No... THAT article represented the OTHER aspect of the sentence you quoted in that it contained facts that are under or unreported.



..compared with what?

Every other system that was tried in the societies that it is now being tried in.

Here's a good article that explains it better than I can:



Self-inflicted poverty
Walter E. Williams

June 30, 2004

Did you learn that the United States is rich because we have bountiful natural resources? That has to be nonsense. Africa and South America are probably the richest continents in natural resources but are home to the world's most miserably poor people. On the other hand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and England are poor in natural resources, but their people are among the world's richest.

Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people.

There's no complete explanation for why some countries are affluent while others are poor, but there are some leads. Rank countries along a continuum according to whether they are closer to being free-market economies or whether they're closer to socialist or planned economies. Then, rank countries by per-capita income. We will find a general, not perfect, pattern whereby those countries having a larger free-market sector produce a higher standard of living for their citizens than those at the socialist end of the continuum.

What is more important is that if we ranked countries according to how Freedom House or Amnesty International rates their human-rights guarantees, we'd see that citizens of countries with market economies are not only richer, but they tend to enjoy a greater measure of human-rights protections. While there is no complete explanation for the correlation between free markets, higher wealth and human-rights protections, you can bet the rent money that the correlation is not simply coincidental.

With but few exceptions, African countries are not free, and most are basket cases. My colleague, John Blundell, director of the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, highlights some of this in his article "Africa's Plight Will Not End With Aid" in The Scotsman (6/14/04).

Once a food-exporting country, Zimbabwe stands on the brink of starvation. Just recently, President Robert Mugabe declared that he's going to nationalize all the farmland. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the consequence will be to exacerbate Zimbabwe's food problems. Sierra Leone, rich in minerals, especially diamonds, with highly fertile land and home to the best port site in West Africa, has declined into a condition of utter despair. It's a similar story in nearly all of south-of-Sahara Africa. Its people are generally worse off now than they were during colonialism both in terms of standard of living and human-rights protections.

John Blundell says that the institutions Westerners take for granted are entirely absent in most of Africa. Africans are not incompetent; they're just like us. Without the rule of law, private property rights, an independent judiciary, limited government and an infrastructure for basic transportation, water, electricity and communication, we'd also be a diseased, broken and starving people.

What can the West do to help? The worst thing is more foreign aid. For the most part, foreign aid is government to government, and as such, it provides the financial resources that allow Africa's corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for the leaders to set up "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks. Even so-called humanitarian aid in the form of food is often diverted. Blundell reports that Mugabe's thugs rip labels off of wheat and corn shipments from the United States and Europe and re-label them as benevolence from the dictator.

Most of what Africa needs the West cannot give, and that's the rule of law, private property rights, an independent judiciary and limited government. The one important way we can help is to lower our trade barriers.




Yes, capitalism is better than many alternatives, but that does not mean that it is the best alternative available.


So what is your opinion on what is?




So, the rapid increase in standard of living in the first world, which largely occured in the 18th and very early 19th centuries cannot be attributed to the protection of "intellectual property".


Which completely ignores the staggering wealth that was created during the industrial revolution, the space age, the nuclear age and the internet age. How convenient for your argument to do so.




Assumption.

Nope... pretty much demonstrable fact. Not protecting property rights does not garauntee that NO progress will be made. It simply means that significantly LESS will be made and history is the record of that.



Despite the propaganda of the Drug Companies, medicine did fine before "intellectual property" and it will do fine afterwards.

See... that's the problem with your argument. You so demonize corporations that you can't see the forrest for the trees... again.

[Karl]

What the fuck,
The workers fired from the American candy bar factory go get new jobs at the American computer factory, which has jobs available because a new technology has emerged and so the workers have moved on to a more technologically-advanced position.

Yes im sure the grunt labor workers at the candy bar factories now suddenly have glorious new jobs as computer engineers becuase of the degree they got in college. but wait, shit.... if they had a degree they wouldnt be working on the line at the candy bar factory now would they? :blink:

or you could even get scenario 2: due to the rapid advance of those machines you mention, they lost their jobs becuase now all it takes is a repair tech and an overseer to maintain the machines that now hold the jobs that was once done by the workers you mention. and i hate your damn avatar.

[LSD]

When did I accuse you of racism? Don't recall doing such a thing. All I accused you of is saying that people outside the US aren't capable of coming up with anything that might be worth protecting. That's pretty much what you're continuing to say here. One does not need to have economic success to be able to come up with something worth protecting. In fact... history pretty much demonstrates that the opposite is true. You know... that whole necessity is the mother of invention type of thing. I'd bet Edison would agree with me.

He also didn't like black people, so I kinda don't give a fuck.

Again, it isn't that "people outside the US" can't "come up" with ideas, its that the US' (and Western Europe's too, of course) complete domination of the world economy means that those "intellectual properties" would soon find themselves owned by US companies.

Could this change within a neo-liberal framework? Possibly... but it will take a long time.


Productivity adds to the pie by expanding the economy and in turn the available wealth.

OK, let's look at this then.

Your argument is that increased capital movement will lead to increased productivity which will lead to greater wealth being produced which will "increase the pie" and that, somehow, this "pie" will be shared by everyone and not just those who have the means to take advantage of it.

:lol:

Wow, and you call us idealistic...


Which completely ignores the staggering wealth that was created during the industrial revolution,

Great! Let's include the industrial revolution as well! That only proves my case, as "intellectual property" did not exist then either.


the nuclear age

By "nucelar age", you mean.. what? 1945 - 19??


and the internet age

Well, I can't speak to "wealth", but inequality, imcome disparity, and poverty have all increased durring the "internet age", so if I were you I wouldn't use that as an example.


Here's a good article that explains it better than I can:

Oh, I see that in your tradition of providing "unbiased", "neutral" articles, you presen an uncited, CapMag oppinion piece!

I guess that tradition died pretty quickly.. :lol:


See... that's the problem with your argument. You so demonize corporations that you can't see the forrest for the trees... again.

Don't shy away, adress the point.

Major scientific breakthroughs were made before "intellectual property" existed.


Nope... pretty much demonstrable fact. Not protecting property rights does not garauntee that NO progress will be made. It simply means that significantly LESS will be made and history is the record of that.

Sometimes... within capitalism...maybe.

Sure, if you running a "market" in which profit is the motive for all activity, then yeah, its less likely that people will innovate if they can't "make money" off it.

But capitalism is not the only option!


Every other system that was tried in the societies that it is now being tried in.

Like I said, Feudalism, Mercantalism..

Do you want to add to that capitalist variants like mixed-economics and state-capitalism and coupon-capitalism...

My point remains that the fact that previous economic models proved inferior cannot be taken as evidence that all future economic models will as well.


Human nature says... yes.

Ah..."human nature". That wonderful middle-age Randian objectivist bullshit myth.

But I suppose you've found some evidence for a "human nature". Well, congratulations, you'll probably win the Nobel.


By adding value to society.

Whaaaaaaa???

"Productivity increases ... by adding value to society"?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


Sorta like saying just because you drop a rock this time, on Earth, that the next time it won't fall. Logic says otherwise.

Except as you've acknowledged yourself, the jury isn't in on this one. The best article you could find was neutral on the subject.

Your trite analogies aside, you claim that there is just as much evidence that "free" trade is harmful as there is that it is helpful, I claim that there is far more.

If we "split the diff" and take the mean, let's say that there's moderately more evidence that it's harmful than helpful.

hmm.. isn't quite as "logical" when you really think about it is it?


So what is your opinion on what is?

Delighted you asked!

:lol:

I would advise you look at, oh, the name of this website! You've been here for 9 months, mate. If you haven't figured out what this place is about yet, you're even more daft then I thought.

[Lance Murdoch]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2005, 08:33 PM
Another chance to open markets and expand trade
Jack Kemp (archive)

March 21, 2005

Most economists agree that free trade benefits all the parties involved eventually. Yes, there are short-run disruptions as economies that were formerly closed to one another begin to interact and trade more freely. Some jobs are displaced and some industries lose the comparative advantage they enjoyed under the protection of being insulated from foreign competition.

Free traders cannot ignore these disruptions because people live in the short run. Even in developed economies such as the United States, many people live from week to week, paycheck to paycheck, where any financial disruption can be a potential disaster. They can't afford to lose their jobs or their businesses for the greater good.

So when, in the short run, more open trade and foreign competition cause some people to lose their jobs and some businesses to fail, an immediate political backlash sets in against free trade. Unless assistance is provided to the short-term losers from more open trade, the sentiment for free trade is easily poisoned. It becomes more difficult to get democratically elected governments to expand trade further, and in some cases intensely concentrated pressure from the short-term losers in the last round of trade-opening agreements succeed in scuttling future rounds, and at times convince the government actually to erect new protectionist barriers.

History clearly demonstrates that countries with open markets who trade freely with other countries experience higher rates of economic growth and higher standards of living. What a tragedy it would be if the long-run prosperity of the nation is mortgaged for some short-term protection. That's why I applaud the Bush administration for doing everything possible to ease the short-term disruption that occurs during the adjustment process after protectionist barriers are lowered and markets are opened.

Since the North America Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 1994, it has been a huge success. According the the Cato Institute, the value of bilateral U.S. trade with Mexico since 1993 has practically tripled, rising from $81 billion to $232 billion. U.S. trade with Mexico is growing twice as fast as U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are now our No. 1 and No. 2 trading partners, respectively. Yet we are still experiencing some of that backlash as the 15-year phaseout of the pre-NAFTA tariffs moves into its final stages.

It's that backlash that motivates much of the opposition to a new free-trade agreement recently negotiated with six of our Central America neighbors - Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua - called the Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA for short.

This opposition exists even though almost 80 percent of products from Central America already enter the United States duty-free, partly because of unilateral preference programs such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences. What's new about CAFTA is that it opens markets to the remaining 20 percent of goods and services, and for the first time opens markets for farm products from the United States.

The economic benefits of CAFTA would be considerable. The United States exports more than $15 billion annually to CAFTA countries. That makes Central America and the Dominican Republic together our 13th-largest export market, larger than Russia, India and Indonesia combined. According to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates CAFTA could expand U.S. farm exports by $1.5 billion a year.
Manufacturers also would benefit, especially in sectors such as information technology products, agricultural and construction equipment, paper products, pharmaceuticals, and medical and scientific equipment.

The potential benefits of freer trade and more open markets are too large to pass up. In addition to CAFTA's direct economic benefits to American consumers and manufacturers, it also offers a huge opportunity to help promote economic growth in the region.

There are substantial political benefits for the United States that flow directly from higher economic growth in the region. More open markets will aid development of the rule of law in our six trading partners that are parties to the agreement and allow for strong rules promoting the protection of intellectual property rights and investment. Greater economic growth will make it easier for the parties to combat the international drug trade. And improved economies in the region will relieve some of the pressure that produces illegal immigration into the United States as people are able to find jobs and start businesses in their home countries where most of them prefer to remain.

CAFTA has been approved by the legislatures in three of the seven countries that are parties to it - El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Others are lining up a vote sometime this spring. Our new trade representative, Rob Portman, has quite an act to follow in former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, but he is up to it. One of his first challenges will be to bring CAFTA up for a vote in Congress by Memorial Day, May 30.

Rather than simply opposing CAFTA, opponents worried about short-term disruption that might be produced by opening the remaining 20 percent of trade between the United States and its Central American neighbors should put ideas on the table to mitigate that disruption. Just saying no to free trade and open markets is not an option anymore.
This goes downhill from the first sentence

"Most economists agree that free trade benefits all the parties involved eventually."

First of all - "most economists" - that's would like being in the USSR and saying "most commissars" agree on something. Economics is a highly ideological profession, Stephen Roach and Milton Friedman wouldn't be getting their big paychecks if they were saying things should be set up to benefit working people. They say things should be set up to benefit the rich, and are rewarded accordingly. I'm more concerned with the truth than what a majority of some ideological group thinks. "A majority of priests, who specialize in theological matters, believe in God!" No duh.

Then second of all - Kemp is pretending that NAFTA and CAFTA are free trade agreements. In fact the FTA in both stand for ":free trade agreement". Of course, these agreements have nothing to do with free trade, with free trade being defined as allowing commodities to enter and leave ones country without regulation.

The first sentence contains two instances of BS, I'm not even going to go any further dissecting it, it's all the same BS. I should note that even most conservatives who understand these matters do NOT believe what Kemp is saying. Kemp is way out on the fringe with the Wall Street Journal editorial page and so forth, there's no way the capitalists would allow Kemp and these folks to run the economy as they see it, because this isn't even conservative economic ideas, this is fringe nutty economic ideas headed towards conspiracy-against-gold territory. But sometimes it suits their purposes to let Kemp, the WSJ editors and so forth speak, so they let them. But most conservatives involved in these matters do not believe this stuff.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Again, it isn't that "people outside the US" can't "come up" with ideas, its that the US' (and Western Europe's too, of course) complete domination of the world economy means that those "intellectual properties" would soon find themselves owned by US companies.


Not when the come up with their own ideas, and patent them so that US companies can't do that. That's the whole point.



Your argument is that increased capital movement will lead to increased productivity which will lead to greater wealth being produced which will "increase the pie" and that, somehow, this "pie" will be shared by everyone and not just those who have the means to take advantage of it.


Yup... and it's been proven by our history.




Great! Let's include the industrial revolution as well! That only proves my case, as "intellectual property" did not exist then either.


Of course it did. Patents and copyrights protected intellectual property. That you want to ignore their existence doesn't mean they don't.



Well, I can't speak to "wealth", but inequality, imcome disparity, and poverty have all increased durring the "internet age", so if I were you I wouldn't use that as an example.


So has overall wealth to the point that our poor make most other nations' rich look rich by comparison. Yup... there is a bigger gap between the poorest person in the nation and the wealthiest. At the same time... the overall standard of living has been raised across the board.



Oh, I see that in your tradition of providing "unbiased", "neutral" articles, you presen an uncited, CapMag oppinion piece!


Why is it that you ignore what I've said. I CLEARLY stated:



No... I've presented articles that either: express my point of view better than I can, or contain facts within opinion articles that are under or unreported.


How typical of you to present only one part of a statement and then present evidence that I've broken my own rule based on only that one part.

Now... do you have any comments or rebuttals to the article or not?




Don't shy away, address the point.

I AM addressing the point. The point is you're blinded by your own agenda to the point of not being able to recognize obvious facts.



Major scientific breakthroughs were made before "intellectual property" existed.


Yup... and now they come at a much faster pace and are put into available consumer goods faster.



Sure, if you running a "market" in which profit is the motive for all activity, then yeah, its less likely that people will innovate if they can't "make money" off it.


Well... at least you admit the obvious.




But capitalism is not the only option.


Correct. It is, simply at this time in human evolution, the best option.

Your answer is a system that is a proven failure our current level of evolution.

Typical.



My point remains that the fact that previous economic models proved inferior cannot be taken as evidence that all future economic models will as well.

Nor have I said they will. See my above statement.



Ah..."human nature".


Evidence? Umm.... ok... look around you. Evidence is everywhere.

I guess you're having a forrest for the trees problem again.



I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Not surprising.



Except as you've acknowledged yourself, the jury isn't in on this one. The best article you could find was neutral on the subject.


Who said anything about it being the "best" article I could find. I found one with lots of factual data... and you ignored it. I could have found lots of articles like yours that opined that it is going swimmingly. We're using the NturNUt after all. Can pretty much find some crackpot that will say nearly anything out there. Your article is evidence of that.

[LSD]

Not when the come up with their own ideas, and patent them so that US companies can't do that. That's the whole point.

..and then US companies will buy those "patents". That's the whole point.


Of course it did. Patents and copyrights protected intellectual property.

Hardly. Patents did not exist in any meaningful sense until the middle of the nineteenth century, copyrights weren't protected until later.


So has overall wealth to the point that our poor make most other nations' rich look rich by comparison. Yup... there is a bigger gap between the poorest person in the nation and the wealthiest. At the same time... the overall standard of living has been raised across the board.

In some countries...for some people...but yeah, capitalism is better than feudalism, better than colonialism, better than mercantilism.

Communism's better.



I AM addressing the point. The point is you're blinded by your own agenda to the point of not being able to recognize obvious facts.

..um what?

You haven't addressed the initial point that "Despite the propaganda of the Drug Companies, medicine did fine before "intellectual property" and it will do fine afterwards.".

I would remind you that the smallpox vaccine predates patenting.


Yup... and now they come at a much faster pace and are put into available consumer goods faster.

1) That's primarily because of increases in technology and communication, not because of intellectual property rules.
2) Those "consumer goods" are usable by a fraction of the world's population.


Evidence? Umm.... ok... look around you. Evidence is everywhere.

Brilliant! I guess you're a shoe-in for the Nobel.... wait a minute...

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT PROVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT! :lol: Oh you clever devil, you're not even inventing new bad arugments anymore!


Your answer is a system that is a proven failure our current level of evolution.

You mean like how democracy was a failure in Greece and Republicanism a failure in Switzerland and the Netherlands?

I guess your parents never told you the old maxim, "if at first you don't succeed"...


Correct. It is, simply at this time in human evolution, the best option.

Except for the millions of people it kills....of course.

[13Commnists]

Free trade works it just turns out it causes more harm to the workers and helps the corparate CEOs.

NAFTA studies point out that more jobs are lost due to free trade. But were are these jobs sent to? Countries with sweat shops, no unions, low pay etc. All this trouble just to make a profit for a few.


""Evidence? Umm.... ok... look around you. Evidence is everywhere."


Brilliant! I guess you're a shoe-in for the Nobel.... wait a minute...

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT PROVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT! laugh.gif Oh you clever devil, you're not even inventing new bad arugments anymore!"

Why do I always hear this human nature? Human Nature does exist it is just the same thing as Chimp nature and Gazelle nature we just never hear about those because you can't use that in an arguement against Communism. Acting like there is something special about human nature. All it is pretty basic, killer instinct and adaptation. Beyond that it's nothing.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

..and then US companies will buy those "patents". That's the whole point.


Only if the person who OWNS the patent is willing to sell it at a mutually agreed upon price. Mutually agreed upon means that BOTH parties benefit.




Patents did not exist in any meaningful sense until the middle of the nineteenth century


Hmm... just about when the industrial revolution began. What a coincidence.



communism's better

Based on your own statements... communism has never existed, so you have no proof.

I suppose pretty much what you advocate is present in anthills and beehives. Look at what happens to one of them when they get sick and can't work for a short time. There's also a ruling class that exists that you continue to say would not exist.



You haven't addressed the initial point that "Despite the propaganda of the Drug Companies, medicine did fine before "intellectual property" and it will do fine afterwards.".


Of COURSE I have... you just continue to ignore it.




I would remind you that the smallpox vaccine predates patenting.

That's one. How many advancements have take place since protection of intellectual property rights began? Explain the increase in the RATE of improvements since.




1) That's primarily because of increases in technology and communication, not because of intellectual property rules.

A nice excuse to fall back on. However, it completely ignores that such technology would ALSO would not have come about at the same pace if protection of intellectual property rights didn't exist.




2) Those "consumer goods" are usable by a fraction of the world's population.


Uh huh... because those other people's haven't embraced property rights and the advancement that results from them.



Except for the millions of people it kills....of course.


You mean compared to the tens if not hundreds of millions that your system has killed?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2005, 04:55 PM
You mean compared to the tens if not hundreds of millions that your system has killed?
Our system?


Most of us here are not Stalinists, Maoists, or even Leninists.

Therefore that was not "our system".


And the numbers killed are actually rather overblown.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

"Stalinists", "Maoists", and "Leninists"... All of them are actually "Leninists", Zingu.

Get your bible straight.

[bed_of_nails]

You always bring up how many people have died "due" to communism. Why dont you go look up how many people die every year due to malnourishment, lack of medical attention, violence, and any other means of death you can think of in the United States or any other Capitalist country you can think of? Think outside the box and look at your own death rates before saying that the other side is undoubtedly worse.

[LSD]

nly if the person who OWNS the patent is willing to sell it at a mutually agreed upon price. Mutually agreed upon means that BOTH parties benefit.

No it doesn't, it just means that both parties agree. In the third world, that usually means that the US bennefits, and the other guy gets to eat that day.


Of COURSE I have... you just continue to ignore it.

No, your answer was "see... that's the problem with your argument. You so demonize corporations that you can't see the forrest for the trees... again." which is both an ad hominem attack and completely irrelevent to the point on the historical development of medicine.


Based on your own statements... communism has never existed, so you have no proof.

By that argument, nothing should ever change, because we have no "proof" that anything else could work.


A nice excuse to fall back on. However, it completely ignores that such technology would ALSO would not have come about at the same pace if protection of intellectual property rights didn't exist.

Again, I point to the industrial revolution.


Hmm... just about when the industrial revolution began. What a coincidence.

The industrial revolution begain in the mid eighteenth century.


That's one. How many advancements have take place since protection of intellectual property rights began? Explain the increase in the RATE of improvements since.

Again, that's primarily due to increased communication and tramsmission of ideas.


You mean compared to the tens if not hundreds of millions that your system has killed?

:lol:!

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways! You can't say both "communism has never existed, so you have no proof" and the tens if not hundreds of millions that your system has killed"!!

Pick one or the other!! :rolleyes:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

No it doesn't, it just means that both parties agree. In the third world, that usually means that the US benefits, and the other guy gets to eat that day.

In other words, you'll continue to ignore obvious facts that any transaction that is done freely benefits both parties.

See, that's the problem with your positions. You have to ignore so many truths in order to come to your conclusions that your conclusions end up being worthless.



No, your answer was "see... that's the problem with your argument. You so demonize corporations that you can't see the forrest for the trees... again." which is both an ad hominem attack and completely irrelevent to the point on the historical development of medicine.

First... it is HARDLY ad hominem attack. The forrest has been pointed out to you on countless occasions and you continue to not see it. Second... it answers the point quite clearly.



By that argument, nothing should ever change, because we have no "proof" that anything else could work.

No... we just have to wait for technology to change so much that all needs are automatically eliminated (abundance is so plentiful that all needs are met and then some) or that human nature advances to the point of never considering one's self above others.

In other words... we're not ready yet because the major barriers to your proposals are still in place and will be for the foreseeable future.



Again, I point to the industrial revolution.

And again I point out that when people invented something... it was recognized as theirs.



The industrial revolution begain in the mid-eighteenth century.


And the rate of expansion exploded when?



Again, that's primarily due to increased communication and tramsmission of ideas.


And the protection of property rights. Again... I point to the Walt Williams article that shows advancements take place in other nations when they begin to protect such rights.



Sorry, but you can't have it both ways! You can't say both "communism has never existed, so you have no proof" and the tens if not hundreds of millions that your system has killed"!!

It's not MY position it hasn't existed and killed tens of millions... it's YOURS. Again, it's only ignorance of the facts of the last century that allows you to draw such conclusions.

[LSD]

In other words, you'll continue to ignore obvious facts that any transaction that is done freely benefits both parties.

Of course it bennefits both parties. It just bennefits one of those parties a heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell of a lot more.


First... it is HARDLY ad hominem attack.

Instead of addressing the relevent issue on the historical development of medicine and drug technology you accused me of "[demonizing] corporations that you can't see the forrest for the trees". That's an ad hominem.


The forrest has been pointed out to you on countless occasions and you continue to not see it. Second... it answers the point quite clearly.

:lol: And yet you still don't address the point in question! :lol:

"Despite the propaganda of the Drug Companies, medicine did fine before 'intellectual property' and it will do fine afterwards."


In other words... we're not ready yet because the major barriers to your proposals are still in place and will be for the foreseeable future.

...because you say so?


And again I point out that when people invented something... it was recognized as theirs.

Yes, it was recognized and I have absolutely no problem with recognition, but until the middle of the late 19th century, that recognition didn't mean that other people couldn't make a copy of it.


It's not MY position it hasn't existed and killed tens of millions... it's YOURS. Again, it's only ignorance of the facts of the last century that allows you to draw such conclusions.

My position is quite stable, thank you. I say that communism has not existed and hence could not have killed people.

You position is that capitalism has existed ...but somehow isn't really responsible for the people who have died under it. It was probably something they ate...or didn't...or whatever...

And you say I'm ignorant!!! :lol: :rolleyes:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Of course it bennefits both parties. It just bennefits one of those parties a heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell of a lot more.

In YOUR opinion. Funny thing is... YOUR opinion is irrelevant in someone else's private transaction.



That's an ad hominem.

No... it's not. I've addressed the substance time and again, and time and again you've seen only the tree in front of you.



And yet you still don't address the point in question.


But I did. Many times.

Oak or Redwood?



"Despite the propaganda of the Drug Companies, medicine did fine before 'intellectual property' and it will do fine afterwards."


It will do fine afterwards is your opinion. It is also not supported by the facts.



...because you say so?


How about because every time it's been tried on any large scale it resulted in fascist slaughters of millions.




but until the middle of the late 19th century, that recognition didn't mean that other people couldn't make a copy of it.


So... middle of 1800's we began to protect property rights... the industrial revolution took off into full swing and the advancement rate exploded.



My position is quite stable, thank you. I say that communism has not existed and hence could not have killed people.


Of course it is. Problem is the facts of history disagree with your position.



You position is that capitalism has existed ...but somehow isn't really responsible for the people who have died under it.

My position is that people die under capitalism. People die under any system. Vastly more people have died when communism has been attempted.

[LSD]

It will do fine afterwards is your opinion. It is also not supported by the facts.

Well, let's clear this up, once and forall.

Do you agree that medical breakthroughs occured before the advent of patents?


Of course it is. Problem is the facts of history disagree with your position.

Which notion?

That the countries in question were not in fact communist? Even those states themselves admit that they were not communist. Sure, many claimed that they were on the road to communism, but that's like Saudi Arabia saying it's on the road to democracy, it doesn't mean we can blaim democracy for its oppression.


How about because every time it's been tried on any large scale it resulted in fascist slaughters of millions.

...sigh.... that's a misuse of the word fascist. I know it's a fun word to throw around, but can we stick to actually using words correctly...please?


My position is that people die under capitalism. People die under any system. Vastly more people have died when communism has been attempted.

More people died in France's attempt at democracy (French Revolution through Napoleon et al) than did at the hands of the French Monarchy in the previous hundred years. Should we then conclude that democracy doesn't work, or that it was just a failed attempt?

More people died in Germany's attempt at democracy (Wiemar republic through National Socialism et al) than did under the Keisars. Should we then conclude that democracy doesn't work, or that it was just a failed attempt?

Neither France nor Germany ever achieved democracy, both ended up with dictators. Does that mean that democracy inevitable leads to dictators?

Failure does not in and of itself indicate that the proposed system is inherently flawed. Yes, there have been failed communist attempts, laregly because they were Marxist-Lenist / Stalinists and were attempting to graft a nineteenth century philosophy on a twntieth century world (or Marxism in the age of imperialism as some would say ... :rolleyes:).


In YOUR opinion. Funny thing is... YOUR opinion is irrelevant in someone else's private transaction.

Well, that's what this thread is, isn't it?

Each of us expressing our oppinions, in this case to whether ot not prviate intellectual property rights will help the third world. I argue that it will not because the US (and other 1st world Euro-American powers) will simply "buy" up those patents and continue to thrive while the oridingal third world "patent holders" will get something of much lesser objective value in return, but which they need to survive.

Claiming that that argument doesn't count because it's "MY oppinion" is not a rebuttal and is just another ad hominem with no substance behind it.

Adress the argument or don't, but pointing out that it's mine wastes both of our time.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Do you agree that medical breakthroughs occured before the advent of patents?


Of course. Just not at the rate that they did before intellectual property rights were protected.



That the countries in question were not in fact communist?


Only according to you and YOUR definition of communism. They say they were communists. Their neighbors say they were communists. Their allies said they were communists. And we said they were communists. I guess if YOU want to call the grass "red" you may do so, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to accept your definitions.




I know it's a fun word to throw around, but can we stick to actually using words correctly...please?

Fine... perhaps you should start to use the readily accepted definitions of words and accept that the USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and China were all communist countries.

At the same time... since communism was forced on the population... it's difficult to say that they are not facsist. But I know you'll continue to deny it.



or that it was just a failed attempt?

That it was a failed attempt. Problem is... it has proven itself to be the best option in so many other places that to deny it, or rather continue to deny it, is irrational.



More people died in Germany's attempt at democracy (Wiemar republic through National Socialism et al) than did under the Keisars. Should we then conclude that democracy doesn't work, or that it was just a failed attempt?

Yet another attempt to say that the Hitler regime was democratic. Next... you'll attempt to say it wasn't socialist or fascist



I argue that it will not because the US (and other 1st world Euro-American powers) will simply "buy" up those patents and continue to thrive while the oridingal third world "patent holders" will get something of much lesser objective value in return, but which they need to survive.

And I'm saying that the problem with your opinion is that it has proven itself wrong in many cases... and the Walter Williams article is evidence of that.

[LSD]

Yet another attempt to say that the Hitler regime was democratic.

It was demcratically elected, once in power it subverted that democracy and imposed a totalitarian dictator.

Much like how communism was subverted in Russia and China.


Next... you'll attempt to say it wasn't socialist or fascist

It was certainly fascist, but it wasn't socialist in any meaningful sense. Certainly the sucess of corporations and the dramatic rise of corporate power belies any claim to socialsim. Besides which a "fascist socialist" state is practically a contradition in terms, given fascisms almsot religious devotion to the "market" and especially to corporate power.


Only according to you and YOUR definition of communism. They say they were communists.

They say they were "socialist".

Most claimed they were on the "road" to communism, but none said they were communist. And even if they had, which they didn't, the DPRK claims that its democractic... should we "take their word" for it?


Their allies said they were communists.

see above.


Their neighbors say they were communists.

Some did, some didn't. Mostly it was just a short-hand for saying a "state ruled by a party which calls itself communist" because saying that every time would take too long. Certainly no legitmate schollar or historian ever claimed that any of the named countries were communist in any Marxist or classical sense.


And we said they were communists

um...who's "we"?


Fine... perhaps you should start to use the readily accepted definitions of words and accept that the USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and China were all communist countries.

Except, even the countries themselves never claimed to be communist, nor did their form of society / economy comply with any standard definition of a communism.

...so who's definition are you using?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Of course. Just not at the rate that they did before intellectual property rights were protected.

You didn't address this point.......

[1936]

Througout this thread YOU have avoided answering sections of a reply....

[Shevek]

Oh, free trade "works" does it. Corporations use globalization to open up factories in the third world where the minimum wage is either dirt cheap or non-existant. They take advantage of peoples poverty and export jobs to places where people are too destitute to raise any ruckus about how shitty thier conditions are, for fear of losing what little they have. Thus the poor in the third world stay poor (or are at best, employed for chicken feed), the the working class in America becomes disenfrachised, and the rich get insanly richer.

Yes the GDP rises, but it doesn't help anyone but those who don't really need a higher GDP. So by your logic, capitalist lawyer, rape is a good thing because rapists are sexually satisfied.

Unless it works for all parties concerned it doesn't really work.

[DoomedOne]

This might have been mentioned about the story in Bolivia where they didn't have enough money for their services anymore so an American Corporation volunteered to privatize their water, and bought their water system, then promptly tripled the price of water. The people overthrew them, raided their irrigation systems, water storage, and began to ship water to each other personally while still demanding that the water be socialized.

California recently banned a product that would be put in gasoline that makes it pollute the water and soil more, so the corporation sued the state of california for all the money they would have made over the next 20 years for selling a harmful product.

Free trade does not work.