Anti Free-Trade - Lets debunk this BIGTIME (vox, rc others)

[Nateddi]

This is an article written by Jacob Hornberger, a free-market libertarian about free trade in 1999. I would love to see how we can all kill this whole statemement piece by piece.

it is called "free trade without the WTO"


Demonstrators at the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle protested "free-trade" negotiations between various nations of the world because, the protestors claimed, free trade harms people. I too oppose the WTO but for a different reason: I favor free trade, not only because people should be free to do what they want with their own money but also because free trade improves people's standard of living.

Free trade is simply the ability of people to trade freely with one another. Why is that a good thing? Because whenever two people enter into an exchange with one another, both of them benefit from their own individual perspective at the moment of the trade. If that were not true, they wouldn't enter into the exchange with one another.

Therefore standards of living of people rise through the simple act of trading! For example, suppose one person has ten apples and another has ten oranges. By trading one apple for one orange, the respective standard of living of each person has increased. The corollary principle then is that whenever government interferes with the ability of people to trade with each other, people's standard of living is lowered.

What then is the ideal course of action for two nations that already have trade barriers between each other? Call for trade negotiations? Enter into trade agreements? Mutually agree to reduce trade restrictions?

Free trade requires none of these things. Instead, a nation devoted to free trade should simply eliminate all of its own tariffs and import restrictions - unilaterally! No meetings. No negotiations. No trade agreements. I repeat: All that a nation should do is: Repeal its own trade restrictions!

"But the other nation might not reciprocate." Yes, that's possible. But again, to the extent that people are free to trade with others, to that extent they are better off.

Thus advocates of free trade have no use for such things as the WTO, GATT, and NAFTA. Why should people's freedom to trade and their economic well-being depend on the whims and caprices of international politicians and bureaucrats? To advance freedom, free trade and higher standards of living for us, the American people should require the U.S. government to unilaterally repeal U.S. tariffs, import quotas, and other trade restrictions.

[vox]

The first thing that I noticed was that his "apples and oranges" metaphor does, indeed, compare apples to oranges! The author uses the example of a simple barter system, where trade is based only on use-value, to obscure the fact that the "free trade" he promotes is based solely on exchange-value! What's truly astounding is that this outrageous and patently false allegory is the only "proof" given that free trade increases the standard of living for working people!

The author goes on to say that a nation should act unilaterally, regardless of whether any other nation reciprocates. This is obviously born from the naive belief that trade, in and of itself, is a good thing regardless of the conditions that surround it. Again, this is patently false. If one nation gets rid of all trade restrictions, but another nation does not, then the nation without restrictions opens itself up to goods that may be produced more cheaply in a foreign nation, due to a lack of labor laws, environmental standards, etc, than the same commodities can be produced domestically. The result in both countries is the same: a lower standard of living for the working class. In country A, there will necessarily be a loss of jobs, and in country B, though exports may rise, there is no reason at all to believe that this will benefit the working class, for historically it does not, but only the capitalist class.

Since the author is a libertarian, he may not believe that there should be any labor laws at all, for everyone is free to accept employment or decline it. One is reminded of the quote, I believe by Anatole France, which states that the rich as well as the poor have the right to sleep under bridges!

It's hard to quantify just how simple-minded this piece of propaganda is, really. A bizarre conclusion based on a false premise is worth nothing to anyone, except, of course, right-wingers.

vox

[Conghaileach]

Damn, vox beat me to it. No, really, I was going to write the exact same thing.

Really.


REALLY!

[abstractmentality]

the standard of living does not increase through free-trade. just look at mexico whose wages, in places, have decreased since "free-trade."

the following is taken from a little thing me and Stormin norman had going a while back:
The point I was trying to make with America being a highly protectionist economy in its development is that if it would not have practiced protectionism, the industries of the united states would not have been able to develop as they did. The theory of free market capitalism is just that, a theory. To quote Chomsky in this case, “take the fact that there is not a single case on record in history of any country that has developed successfully through adherence to ‘free market’ principles: none.” Here is an excerpt from Paul Bairoch’s Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes:
The important point to note here is not only that the depression [in Europe beginning around 1870] started at the peak of liberalism [i.e. the period of Europe's experimentation with laissez faire] but that it ended around 1892-4, just as the return to protectionism in Continental Europe had become really effective. . . . In those years the United States, which, as we have seen, was increasing its protectionism, went through a phase of very rapid growth. Indeed this period can be regarded as among the most prosperous in the whole economic history of the United States.

Another example would be the steel industry of the 80’s:
[F]or most of the 1980s America's steel industry was heavily protected from foreign competition. Starting in 1982, after a series of anti-dumping complaints against foreign suppliers the government negotiated a series of "voluntary" export restraints (VERs) with the E.C. [European Community], Japan, South Korea and others. The agreements limited the foreign supplier's share of the American market; thus sheltered, the industry rebuilt itself. . . . The policy of protection -- much criticised by economists at the time -- seems to have worked. It gave the industry the time (and extra profits) it needed to adjust.

[flames of the flag]

That author is really really ignorant. that article was soo stupid.
free trade doesnt really improve or increase anything, aside from the corporate wallets of america. vox used my workers example.
anyways free trade doesnt reall mean people can trade freely is just means corporations can do whatever they want.
fuck free trade.