Hi Harry,
glad we're getting "somewhere" on-topic...
> >Just two basic hints: You confuse opposition to "free trade" with
> >opposition to trade.
>
> You mean I confuse free trade with unfree trade?
You confuse the opposition, i.e. you suggested that I oppose trade
altogether when in fact I only oppose "free trade".
> > And you confuse improper protectionism with useful regulations.
>
> What is improper protectionism? For that matter, what is proper
> protectionism?
Improper protectionism is protectionism that only serves the rich at the
expense of everyone else, e.g. Erhard's land laws which you like so much.
Proper protectionism is protectionism that serves society and environment,
such as various regulations that the FT fans want to abolish.
> I pointed out that Burma and the USSR survived because of the black market,
> which produced most of their food. Both countries turned a blind eye to the
> black market because they had to. There would have been starving people
> rioting in the streets. The socialist collective farms simply couldn't
> produce food even though they had plenty of regulations.
>
> You called these extreme examples because you do what most socialists and
> communists do. They compare the actuality of capitalism with the ideal of
> socialism. You have to compare ideals, or compare the realities.
Strawman argument. The issue here is not socialism but whether the west
should implement free trade or maintain regulations that make sense.
But while you're at it: The far-eastern expert Peter Scholl-Latour (who
is anything but a commie) once wrote that "if China would become capitalist,
times would return that every morning the roadsweepers sweep the dead
(starved) out of the streets." [quoted from memory]
> In a free market, people choose the highest quality goods they can get for
> the cheapest price. It's called competition.
In a free market, producers (and consumers) maximize the externalization of
costs, at the expense of others and the future. It's called rat-race to the
bottom.
> Producers compete by serving the consumers better.
No, they compete by lowering wages, increasing pollution and layoffs.
> But, if you want people to behave the way you want them to and are prepared
> to force them to, that's all right. I prefer to adopt a much simpler
> philosophy "Do as you like, but harm no-one."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unfortunately, free trade harms a lot of people. (Improper protectionism
harms many people too, but that doesn't mean that all protectionism is bad!)
> So, let's end this bit by asking you what do you mean by "socially
> conscious".
Decent wages and labor conditions, minimized externalization of social costs.
Now to the 3 examples:
> >(1) Manufacturer M1 produces shoes in a socially and environmentally
> >responsible way, while manufacturer M2 produces similar shoes with a lot of
> >pollution (in production and transports) and low slave-wages and unsafe
> >workplaces."
> >
> >"M2's shoes are obviously much cheaper, so under free trade, M2 soon drives
> >M1 out of business. So responsible behavior is being punished instead of
> >rewarded."
>
> On the contrary, people prefer the good guy's shoes, so they buy from M1.
Very few people buy from M1 (the few who can afford to), but in the
dog-eat-dog system of FT, only the big ones survive, so M1 goes out of
business. Even if M1 survives, it can only serve a tiny niche market
that is irrelevant in the big picture.
> >(2) Farmers F1 in developed country C1 grow corn. So do farmers F2 in
> >developing country C2. Due to lower price and wage levels in C2, F2's corn
> >is much cheaper on the world market. With free trade (absence of "trade
> >barriers"), F2 drive F1 out of business, with negative consequences for
> >both C1 and C2: In C1, unemployment increases and the landscape suffers
> >(not being cared for by farmers anymore); also, foreign dependency
> >increases (C1 is unable to feed itself in case of war).
> >In C2, hunger increases because the domestic corn now feeds C1's cattle
> >instead of C2's people."
>
> You don't seem to understand how an economy progresses. Essentially, those
> who cannot supply what the consumer wants go broke - or they change their
> businesses to something the consumer wants.
But F1 _does_ supply what the consumer wants! Just at a higher price than
F2, due to higher price and wage levels in C1. Even if F1's quality is
higher too, F1 will go out of business like M1 in example (1).
> Your thinking seems to follow the line of the somewhat ancient idea of "a
> lump of labor".
Strawman argument. The question is why you want F1 to go out of business
although he produces what consumers want, although his work is beneficial
to the environment and rural employment, and despite the negative effects
of FT on C2.
> "Foreign dependency" is the bete noire of the "America First" types and
> corporate Britain's "Buy British!" So, you are firmly among the right wing
> types.
Or I am a Green who thinks that unnecessary transports around the planet
should be minimized, and an Internationalist who doesn't want the
rich man's cattle to eat the poor man's corn.
> The old dictum of the free traders was: "If goods don't cross the
> frontiers, armies will."
In most cases, armies crossed frontiers to make goods cross the frontiers,
but _against_ the will of the target country (colony) ! The concept still
"works" today (oil/pipeline wars). It's known as "The Iron Fist of the
'Invisible Hand'."
> The hallmark of a nation bent on war is self-sufficiency.
Self-sufficiency also enables a peaceful country to avoid being blackmailed
(and pulled into war) by other countries.
> When the economies of nations are firmly entwined with
> each other, the chances of peace improve.
>
> No certainties - but at least the chances that there will be peace are
> likely to increase.
Empires that just can't get enough cheap raw materials and new markets for
their products are the prime source of wars in history, until today.
> >(3) Non-socialist country C has a great public transit system. Due to
> >free trade, the system gets privatized, so many train and bus lines
> >are shut down because they're not "profitable".'
>
> What has free trade to do with a potty idea like privatization of public
> transit systems? Free trade is simple the exchange of goods.
Public transit systems are subsidized; subsidies are a "trade barrier" to
the FT fans. So the FT fans seek to privatize everything they can (see GATS).
> >As a result, air pollution, traffic accidents/deaths, urban sprawl,
> >unemployment, foreign dependency (of oil), and immobility of those without
> >cars greatly increase. All these costs more than compensate the public
> >savings from not subsidizing public transit anymore. The only ones who
> >benefit are the car&oil industry and a few rich shareholders of the now
> >privatized public transit.
>
> Wow! All this from "privatizing public transit". Perhaps you shouldn't do it.
Glad you agree -- but if you want FT, you also want privatization, to be
consistent.
> >You may notice that in all 3 examples, the benefit of free trade is only
> >to a few "fatcats", while the public and the environment loses. This flies
> >in the face of your claim that "the people" want & benefit from free trade.
>
> In your first example, we appeared to get good quality cheap shoes - all
> 280 million of us. That doesn't seem bad.
Do you only think of the present US consumers ?
And aren't consumers workers too ?
> Then in your second example, someone who isn't supplying us with good and
> cheap enough food.goes out of business. That seems a pretty good thing to
> me. Apparently again 280 million of us eat cheaper and better.
If you look at Americans, you see where cheap food leads to: Fat and ill
people, highest healthcare costs, rural poverty, destroyed landscapes and
polluted soils. That seems a pretty bad thing to me.
> In your third example, you change the subject to privatization of a public
> transit system, something you don't like. Well I don't like it either.
But subsidies are a barrier to FT, aren't they ?
Looking forward to your explanations,
Chris
