Free Trade for dummies

by **Ectomancer** on Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:26 pm

* The absence of trade-distorting policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations or laws) that give domestic firms, households or factors of production an advantage over foreign ones

Exactly, and child labor laws (which is one item you were complaining about), environmental impact laws (another issue you have), and laws that prevent monopolies are the regulations I'm talking about. Those do not impinge on the definition of free trade. So your quote is meaningless in the context of those types of regulations. You can have laws governing exploitation, yet it is still free trade.

by **vtmarik** on Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:49 pm

Ectomancer wrote:
* The absence of trade-distorting policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations or laws) that give domestic firms, households or factors of production an advantage over foreign ones

Exactly, and child labor laws (which is one item you were complaining about), environmental impact laws (another issue you have), and laws that prevent monopolies are the regulations I'm talking about. Those do not impinge on the definition of free trade. So your quote is meaningless in the context of those types of regulations. You can have laws governing exploitation, yet it is still free trade.

I don't know how relevant this is, but the US has still not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

by **Backglass** on Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:39 pm

reverend_kyle wrote:

Picture of poor little child working in a maquiladora..

That is no "poor little child". That is a woman.

by **qeee1** on Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:15 pm

Ectomancer wrote:Get used to real life facts. There will always be someone with power taking advantage of those without. Maybe if you dont believe me we could sing Kumbaya while reading a copy of the Communist Manifesto.

So what because it's always been it's suddenly ok? It's always been and its always been wrong.

And anywayThe communist manifesto hardly seems a peacful, out of touch book anyway, Marx's analysis of class relations and the workings of capatalism are still taken seriously even by right wing economists today, even if they reject the final forecast.

You still have not proven that trade restrictions are better for citizens than free trade, and I HAVE shown that free trade DOES benefit the majority of citizens. At least I have shown them to be the wealthiest citizens in the entire world.

The sucess of countries persuing free trade policies does not make free trade right. I mean hell those who built empires in the previous centuries, were the most sucessful but their human rights records are apalling. You most definately have not shown the free trade benefits the majority of citizens, bearing in mind the majority of citizens live in third world countries.

Wealth is becoming more and more centralised, what does that say about free trade?

And finally communism didn't fail. Attempts to create a communist society failed.

Blah, anger prevents me from writing more.

by **reverend_kyle** on Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:17 pm

Ectomancer wrote:
* The absence of trade-distorting policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations or laws) that give domestic firms, households or factors of production an advantage over foreign ones

Exactly, and child labor laws (which is one item you were complaining about), environmental impact laws (another issue you have), and laws that prevent monopolies are the regulations I'm talking about. Those do not impinge on the definition of free trade. So your quote is meaningless in the context of those types of regulations. You can have laws governing exploitation, yet it is still free trade.

However, if you read provision 11 of nafta.. and I'm not quite sure if this is on other free trade agreements... it makes it illegal for countries to make laws like that if it will interfere with a businesses profits... which means that they can sue them under a private nafta court for settlements. Get used to the cold hard facts that is how corrupt this system is.

by **reverend_kyle** on Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:20 pm

qeee1 wrote:
You still have not proven that trade restrictions are better for citizens than free trade, and I HAVE shown that free trade DOES benefit the majority of citizens. At least I have shown them to be the wealthiest citizens in the entire world.

The sucess of countries persuing free trade policies does not make free trade right. I mean hell those who built empires in the previous centuries, were the most sucessful but their human rights records are apalling. You most definately have not shown the free trade benefits the majority of citizens, bearing in mind the majority of citizens live in third world countries.

He seems to have a very teleogical view point whereas the good moral theory is and always will be deontology. Where you should look at how you are trying to achieve these possibly good viewpoints and look at the means you are using. If these means are immoral then you should no longer continue. Like if you plant a bad seed than a bad tree will grow, or it wont grow. But if you plant a good seed then a good tree will grow.

by **Stopper** on Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:30 pm

qeee1 wrote:
someone else wrote:You still have not proven that trade restrictions are better for citizens than free trade, and I HAVE shown that free trade DOES benefit the majority of citizens. At least I have shown them to be the wealthiest citizens in the entire world.

The sucess of countries persuing free trade policies does not make free trade right. I mean hell those who built empires in the previous centuries, were the most sucessful but their human rights records are apalling. You most definately have not shown the free trade benefits the majority of citizens, bearing in mind the majority of citizens live in third world countries.

Should I have read more closely, (ie not glanced through) some of the earlier posts, or am I right in thinking that the idea that America and Europe actually PRACTISE free trade has not been proven here yet?

Africa is the poorest continent in the world, and the continent's economy has barely grown for 20 years (though if anyone wants to correct me on that, with reputable sources, fine)... I would have thought that a continent still heavily reliant on agriculture would reasonably expect America and Europe NOT to be protectionist when it comes to food and other crops, but I think it's obvious that's not the case, not least since I prepare accounts for British farmers, and I see the massive subsidies they get from the EU all the time.

So for the poorest people in the world, it seems to me that free trade simply doesn't happen.