Hi Harry: I agree with you about free trade. Thading has been conducted ever since people found it was beneficial to both parties. That is, in a free society, people will only trade if it is beneficial to each of the parties.
Some time ago I wrote, perhaps expressing myself poorly, that free trade was not the same as free market. A market is when the ownership of money, (as an abstract measure of goods) skews the trade. The market involves the fact that money is a claim on goods, not a measure of the same. When we include hat the creation of money is a private enterprise endeavour, which private endeavour has made rules that favour those who create the money, it has to be acknowledged that, while free trade is both good and fair, the market is neither. By confusing the definitions, the issue cannot be resolved. Perhaps my definitions are not acceptible, that is a separate issue. Statements like, "It's amazing how the corporations in the corrupted politics of today are supposed to be free trade advocates." muddy the waters. Corporations are not in favour of free trade. They eliminate or stifle it every chance they get, through both canibalism, (swallowing the enemy) and slavery (subsidiary corporations) both exercises have been found to be morally reprehensible for persons in every civilised society, but not for abstract persons (corporations) (Harry, at this point I read the rest of your post and begin to interleave***. My feeble mind can only handle so much unlike the rest of the intellects on this list. ) At 12:57 PM 11/10/2001 -0700, you wrote: >Gentlemen, > >Some comments on free trade. The phrase shouldn't really be capitalized - >it's not a political policy. It simply describes trading - as natural a >characteristic of human behavior as anything. ***Total agreement! > >Stopping them from trading is a political policy designed to give the >privileged Fat Cats an advantage at everyone's expense. ***Passing laws that prohibit trades means only certain trades are prohibited. Thats where political influence on politicians begins to rear its ugly head. >Free Trade is removing those privileges from the Fat Cats and allowing your >free citizens to satisfy their desires. ***Yes, free trade would do that, but the free trade "agreements' is law, as above. >Unilateral free trade means you >couldn't care less about what other countries do. You simply drop your >import restrictions of all kinds on the normal trade goods that will >enhance everyone's living standards. ***Only if the "market" is kept out of it. the exchange of goods and services benefits everyone. Again, it is the market that distorts. Again, it is the purrpose of the trade that enters the equation, is it to obtain money, or obtain the goods being traded for. >Almost invariably corporations of every kind are the Fat Cats who benefit >from protection. It's amazing how the corporations in the corrupted >politics of today are supposed to be free trade advocates. ***Agreed > >Certainly they like to buy in a free trade market - but much more important >to them is to sell in a protected market. ***Agreed again >Free trade is good for everyone except those who have happily raised their >prices behind the tariff wall. ***Again, tarrif laws are skewed to favour countries, not encourage free trade. >Correspondents have somehow separated free trade from the free market. The >free market describes dropping all restrictions to trading - inside and >outside the country. (Yes, of course, health and safety concerns are >paramount - as they are now under protection.) ***Exactly the opposite! The market is skewed, by laws that both permit and restrict, remove priveledges and bestow them. That in addition to moving public proerty into the private sector. >However, Ed has reservations: > >ED : "What the "free market" does is violate the above defined, and >essential to democracy, previously defined "free economy". ***I agree to this point. As soon as privately created money enters the trading environmernt, the fairness of trading is abrogated. >It allows the >integrity of a >free and sovereign state to be abrogated, and potentially allows it to >become the vassel of a corporately integrated free economy, comprised >exclusively of that corporation, since the "free" refers to the >corporation's shareholders and their wellbeing, not the wellbeing of the >society within the sovereign state." ***That is, I think, the essence of what I posited. >I thought "free" meant "not under compulsion or restraint". Now you suggest >the corporations run their affairs for the benefit of the shareholders. >Well, so they should. That's their job. ***Where is the States' share in the enterprise. Does not the word "charter" mean, broadly, "special priveledges given to a few (shareholders) that it is not in the best interests of the many to have" Let's keep in mind that when the creation of "coroporations" began, the sovereign had an interest in the enterprise, at times substantial. Modern corporations who pay taxes are regarded with disbelief by the CEO's of other corporations. Thie lawyers are injadequate. ***There is a natural tendency of corporations to form monopolies and combines, at times with the paid permission of elected officials. Didn't a law recently gert repealed (Glass Stiegler, or something like that) to make combines and monopolies easier. >Problem is that a free market won't allow them to do what they want. They >are controlled by the free market. If they want to raise prices, they can't >unless they are offering better products or services. And even then, >competition will force them to provide what people want. ***It is free trade that will not allow then to do what they want. The free market, through supply management, can force people to live in caves and eat genetically modified food, because. "Thats's all we can afford!", according to the money supply and balancing the books, disregardingh the abundance iof both skilled labour and materials. The Great Slump proved that. . >So, as you suggest, they go to crooked politicians and buy their way into >easy prosperity. ***Precisely! >So the politicians, rather than the state, become >vassals. Yet, you say vassals of "a corporately integrated free economy". ***Sorry, I need more context to reply to the above. the following quote will have to do. "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power"...Benito Mussolini >Looks somewhat oxymoronic. If the corporation, supported by our so-called >representatives, runs the economy for the benefit of the corporation - how >can it be free? It's like describing someone as a free slave. ***I agree that it would not be free. again, I'm not sure of context. You will recall that many of the emancipated slaves in southern US refused freedom. >Then, Ed, you should be ashamed of yourself. You performed a perfectly good >non-sequitur with: > >ED : "Large numbers of people were moved from Africa to the New World as >slaves. Forests were cleared and huge plantations established. Wars were >fought over access to trade. The process continues." ***Did I really say that? Might you be confusing the two Ed's? I recall Ed W saying, "two 'ed's are better than one. I'm not trying to evade, I just don't recall the terminology, it's not familiar. >People were kidnapped, chained, transported, and sold. You think that had >any connection with free trade, which is the voluntary exchange of goods >and services freely carried out without "compulsion or restraint". > >But, you make the case with the last part of the paragraph. Wars are fought >over protection (restricted access) , not over free trade (free access). >War is the child of protection and uncooperative self-sufficiency - the >Fortress America mentality. > >As the old free trade slogan said: "When goods don't cross the frontiers, >armies will." > >I am thoroughly enjoying the thrusts and parries between Ed and Keith and >they finally agreed - on the wrong thing: > >ED : "As to your main point, I too favour free trade. The problem I see is >that >it has rarely if ever existed. Historically, trade has been anything but free. ***Certainly I agree with that. ***Note***If I have inadvertently answered comments addressed to Ed W, I do humbly apologise. PS I've just read Ed W's Post. I tend to agree that Harry has wrongly attributed. Are there really to many 'eds? ====================================== >KEITH : "I think it was almost certainly totally free between about >30,000BC when man was beginning to colonise the world (and needed to trade >essential resources with the adjacent traibe) and about 5,000BC when the >beginnings of state-like cities and empires were starting as agriculture >developed. But from then onwards we had increasing state interference." > >HARRY: You both must have forgotten 1846 and the repeal of the Corn Laws in >Britain. In the first part of the 19th century, people were falling in the >street from hunger. This led to the formation of the Anti-Corn Law league >to drop tariffs on corn from the US. > >The good guys won, cheap American corn flooded Britain, and it was possible >to eat again. They didn't stop there. All import restrictions were removed >in spite of heavy opposition from the Conservative Party - who favored >"Tariff Reform". > >That phrase has surfaced again - but now it's called "Fair Trade". > >By the turn of the century, only tea and sugar - neither produced in >England -bore a revenue tariff. > >The 60 years from the repeal of the Corn Laws to the "war to end wars" was >called the Pax Britannica. During it, British ships sailed everywhere >peacefully spreading British ideas, culture, language, and no doubt fish >and chips. During this time anybody could sell anything to Britain without >restriction. > >The war brought the McKenna Duties (designed to stop people importing >luxuries through the U-Boat packs). Yet, Britain stayed relatively free >trade through the twenties supported interestingly enough by the trade >unions whose members preferred cheap food to dear food. > >Then came the depression and the US inflicted the Smoot-Hawley tariffs on >its people, even as Britain entered the Ottawa Agreements that established >Imperial Preference. > >Thus did free trade disappear from our economies. > >Harry > > >****************************** >Harry Pollard >Henry George School of LA >Box 655 >Tujunga CA 91042 >Tel: (818) 352-4141 >Fax: (818) 352-2242 >******************************* > > >
