| Author |
Topic:
Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 6:04pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Ender, if everyone viewed the issue the same way, there would be nothing to discuss.
You are supposed to try to convince people your position is correct by discussing it with them, not wait for them to agree with you before engaging with them. Bush style diplomacy doesn't work.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 6:09pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Well Flyer, no, and uh, thanks?
If we're going to discuss globalisation, then why is DM bringing up free trade?
They're not the same thing.
He doesn't understand the subject matter, so we can't debate/discuss it because of that factual gap./
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 6:14pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Free trade is a facet of globablization.
One can argue it is the lubricant in the globalization machine.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 6:43pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
If every country followed purely protectionist policies, Globalization would be near impossible.
DM's Article posted:
But won't the profits of globalization's winners offset the losses of its losers? No, he responded, not any longer. According to Samuelson, the consequences of globalization for the United States have been negative for some time now. Compared with Asia's rising economies, the country is now in a "win-lose" situation. Asia, says Samuelson, is gaining economic strength while America is losing its assets.
I think this is the key point. And I agree that some real numbers on both sides of the issue would help out. We all know that global free trade would create more net wealth. If not wanting your country to be one of the net losers in the new system and preserving the old system that benefited you greatly is economic nationalism, then I doubt many politicians will see that as a bad thing. Some like diz couldn't care less if creating a global free market turns middle America into the middle world, the cosmopolitan figures they didn't deserve it anyways and you are helping the poorest become not so poor. The problem is of course that these "backward" and "fearful" people still have a lot of political power and if you don't placate them and ease their losses, they can destroy your whole system. It doesn't matter if it is for the greater good, and you can call it a sense of entitlement if you want, but when you give people something and then take it away, it creates political instability which is bad for the market.
of course if you can prove that it doesn't really hurt them and they will mostly maintain their standard of living, then it is stupid to worry about and create protectionist barriers.
Personally I don't think the market does everything people like to think it does.
Also it isn't racist to say you can't understand what the heck Indians are saying, to most American ears it isn't very comprehensible. I worked in a job where Indians did all the tedious parts of my job, I would fix some problem and send an email to let the guy in India type out the letter to tell the customer what I did. I would also get email messages from both them and a company 30 miles away, and while the Indians sometimes would use really strange wordings, I occasionally would get a paragraph long message from somebody from the outsourcing company 30 miles away that was simply incomprehensible. My point is that they have their strenghts, but speaking with Americans isn't one of them.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 7:09pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
As you can see, E_S' last fig leaf is the ad hominem. It's his modus operandi, along with his repetitive anti-American diatribes.
Espaldapalabras makes good points in his post.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DroidGeneral
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 9:51pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Ender_Sai posted:
But we endure the exploitation of human resources every day, Jello - it's called work.
E_S
Ah yes, that lovely word from the anti-capitalist mentality...
-----signature-----
"The Force will be with you, always." "Star Wars isn't dead."-George Lucas  Ron Paul 2008
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 10:49pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
- Date Edited:
12/13/07 10:52pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Ender_Sai
|
Droid General, just, stop. I'm a capitalist, free trade loving neoliberal. The fact that I find Dr Paul to be a ham fisted, cretinous oaf makes me smart. None of that makes me anti-capitalist and just because I laugh at people jumping on his bandwagon without understanding a damned word, doesn't mean you should confuse what I say. lol, etc.
DM, let's try this again.
You don't understand what you're talking about.
You act like you do but when you meet people who do it becomes obvious that you're trying to sound much more across the issues where than you are.
If you did some research by yourself and didn't let people tell you what to think it would be easier.
I explained the terms to you before, and it's even in the first post of this thread. Yet you come along and ask if it's the end of globalisation because free trade is unpopular in the US right now. That's an ignorant statement, a foolish statement, and a wrong statement. Not because free trade is unpopular in the US. It is, and purely because people are ignorant and fearful because they don't understand it.
It's wrong because you ham fistedly smash the two together. That's very bad. Crossing the streams bad.
So we're singing from the same hymn sheet:
Globalisation is a buzz word that refers to the trend for people, firms and governments around the world to become increasingly dependent on and integrated with each other. Free Trade refers to ability of people to undertake economic transactions with people in other countries free from any restraints imposed by governments or other regulators.
Again, I have told you this before so please, this time, pay attention.
Consider:
North Korea is an isolated state.
You could have a free trade agreement with North Korea which would remove all tariffs from trade between "you" and North Korea. Yet at no part does greater economic, social, cultural or political interaction occur.
We are all chatting on a message board located on a server in the Western USA. We are chatting in ways nobody's communicated before. At no point are governments interferring with our exchanges of manufactured goods.
Free trade helps drive globalisation by being more of an engine than a lubricant as Jediflyer previously suggested. In seeking new ways to make profit, companies sought new markets and cheap labour sources. This process usually opened the door for expat workers as well as American culture, since that's a massive part of America's soft power and has been promoted as such.
If you smash the square peg of globalisation into the round hole of free trade again, DM, I'll ban you for baiting since I've explained it a dozen times and it's a really frustrating endeavour having to do it again and again. Please. Just, don't.
You said that "Asia, says Samuelson, is gaining economic strength while America is losing its assets."
Two things.
Firstly, America doesn't have any right to power. America's influence will decline, which may be contrary to God's will  but that's how the world works. It's only inevitable that power waxes and wanes. So he's right, America will end up being eclipsed by Asia. The stupid thing to do would be to assume that ham fisted economic nationalism will fix this.
Consumers will not be able to afford to pay for US manufactured goods which are two to three times more expensive at the lower end than a much better quality product from overseas. That's natural. You have to accept this. And the capacity of companies to extend their reach to developing economies to minimise their overheads is greater, especially now they can keep in touch in real time with ease.
Blaming the system for American insecurity makes no sense. The free trade fear and hatred of today is no different to people blaming Jews for economic woes in Europe in the early part of the last century. It's anti-intellectual, in defiance of reason, and based on fear and ignorance.
I'm sorry if you don't like the idea that American dominance is not perpetual. That's really your fault for ignoring history. If you had real leadership and a better system of government not so susceptible to greed and selfish interests, you could deal with it better, but no.
By the way, remind me - how does America rank in science R&D? In business transparency? In innovation?
Stop pissing your pants over free trade and globalisation (note: and, not the same word, two concepts, yay!) and start focussing on a solution for your problems.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/13/07 11:21pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
OK, let's talk Asia's role in global economics:
* Asia represents 24 per cent of world economic growth;
* Asia now absorbs about 25 per cent of the rest of the world’s imports;
* At current growth rates, China will be the second largest economy in the world by 2010 and is widely expected to become the world’s largest economy by 2030.
The good quality of Asian growth today has its roots in the poor quality growth that occurred in the mid 1990s and led to the Asian crisis. Then, Asian companies were taking on substantial levels of debt to fund over-investment in most sectors (such as property, manufacturing, and financial services). The crisis imposed financial discipline on Asian governments and corporations, which is now reflected in low debt levels, substantial trade account surpluses, and huge foreign exchange reserves.
This is in stark contrast to the United States. Over-investment in hype sectors saw many US companies, as well as consumers, taking on more debt. For the country as a whole, this has resulted in a huge current account deficit.
Not China's (or Asia's) fault, but if you need a scapegoat, something you don't understand is usually a solid bet.
So, why is the impact of Asian growth more important now? At the end of World War II, Asia accounted for only 19 per cent of world output. In 1992, it was 37 per cent. By 2025, it is predicted to be 57 per cent.
The inevitable conclusion is that Asia is going to replace the West at the top of the food chain. This is almost a natural conclusion.
I don't expect that to sit well with Americans in particular, but what are you going to do about it? I mean, realistically?
ES
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
12/14/07 12:06am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
|
The same thing we do every night, Pinky.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
yankee8255
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
12/14/07 3:26am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Ender_Sai posted:
OK, let's talk Asia's role in global economics:
* Asia represents 24 per cent of world economic growth;
* Asia now absorbs about 25 per cent of the rest of the world’s imports;
* At current growth rates, China will be the second largest economy in the world by 2010 and is widely expected to become the world’s largest economy by 2030.
The good quality of Asian growth today has its roots in the poor quality growth that occurred in the mid 1990s and led to the Asian crisis. Then, Asian companies were taking on substantial levels of debt to fund over-investment in most sectors (such as property, manufacturing, and financial services). The crisis imposed financial discipline on Asian governments and corporations, which is now reflected in low debt levels, substantial trade account surpluses, and huge foreign exchange reserves.
This is in stark contrast to the United States. Over-investment in hype sectors saw many US companies, as well as consumers, taking on more debt. For the country as a whole, this has resulted in a huge current account deficit.
Not China's (or Asia's) fault, but if you need a scapegoat, something you don't understand is usually a solid bet.
So, why is the impact of Asian growth more important now? At the end of World War II, Asia accounted for only 19 per cent of world output. In 1992, it was 37 per cent. By 2025, it is predicted to be 57 per cent.
The inevitable conclusion is that Asia is going to replace the West at the top of the food chain. This is almost a natural conclusion.
I don't expect that to sit well with Americans in particular, but what are you going to do about it? I mean, realistically?
ES
Take out a fifth mortgage on my home. Why have them own us a little when we can go the whole 9 yards and become their indentured servants?
-----signature-----
A perfect world: a house in the Hamptons with two solaria and a horse named Prickely Pete,
Dr. van Nostrand as my primary care physician,
the O-OT legally available on DVD in a quality worthy of its greatness
and Luke the undisputed hero of Star Wars
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/14/07 3:58am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
E_S posted:
If you smash the square peg of globalisation into the round hole of free trade again, DM, I'll ban you for baiting since I've explained it a dozen times and it's a really frustrating endeavour having to do it again and again. Please. Just, don't.
Not only is your retort posts filled with haughty mockery of me personally (examples of said material):
E_S posted:
You don't understand what you're talking about.
I guess I'm stupid.
E_S posted:
You act like you do but when you meet people who do it becomes obvious that you're trying to sound much more across the issues where than you are.
I'm a phony. I should be looked at with amusement by those in the know.
E_S posted:
If you did some research by yourself and didn't let people tell you what to think it would be easier.
I don't think for myself, which is the most vile comment you threw out in that diatribe. How patently insulting.
After I already pointed out your propensity to do such things on such a level (after you called me a racist after saying that I lack comprehension skills), you not only continue to do it, but you threaten to ban me.
Nice.
What's the point of me even trying discussing this issue? It's like having coffee with a person and discussing an issue, and they're basically calling you stupid to your face and then having the audacity to say they're going to throw you out of the cafe while you're just sitting there trying to express an opinion cordially, even if there is disagreement.
Well, you don't have to worry about having the discussion with me. I will politely get up from the table and exit the cafe (in this case, this particular thread).
I will say that I'm sure it pleases you to say that American power is 'in decline'. I will also say that I don't favor 'isolationism' in dealing with this problem.
That's the end of my contribution to this particular matter.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/14/07 7:27am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
- Date Edited:
12/14/07 7:30am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
The inevitable conclusion is that Asia is going to replace the West at the top of the food chain. This is almost a natural conclusion.
I don't expect that to sit well with Americans in particular, but what are you going to do about it? I mean, realistically?
This is partly right.
For nearly a decade, the American consumer model was to max out credit cards, then reconsolidate the debt into the house mortgage.
This lovely spending model fueled a critical stage of Chinese industrial growth. Now, Americans have lost the home equity refinancing option. All that's left is to max out credit card debt and then crash the value of the dollar, which is already happening of course.
Chinese growth is not an unstoppable inevitability. There are a number of things potentially standing in the way: a global economic recession, an economic and geopolitical war over access to fossil fuels, Chinese environmental degradation, etc. The future is going to be more complicated than a continuation of current Asian growth trends.
Some friends of mine went to China last year to buy a baby. I asked them what stood out about the trip apart from the beautiful baby they bought. "The pollution," was the two word answer.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/14/07 7:45am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
DM you continually and stubbornly refuse to do anything akin to research on a topic you insist on opining on and you get it wrong. If a person confuses the kidney and the liver, it's a pretty fracken obvious thing to see and correct. You've done that, except with political economy but you've gotten huffy and 'wounded' over it. You're not stupid, you're just doing a stupid thing in being stubbornly wrong.
I wouldn't be impatient if this was the first time I'd had to explain this to you. It's frustrating and insulting.
Jabba, Asia =/= China. 
In fact I've made the case that China's "domination" is only assured if China has a massive cultural shift away from rote learning at all levels. And yeah, the pollution is horrible, wretched.
ES
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/14/07 8:41am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
- Date Edited:
12/14/07 8:47am (4 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
As far as Asia goes, then, if Asia is producing 57% of the world's economic output by 2025, they still won't be pulling their per capita weight with 60% of the world's population.
the point is, the U.S. has no inherent right to a quarter, or a fifth or whatever of the world's wealth. The end point of "globalization" in an idealized fairyland world would be wealth distributed around the world geographically in proportion to population. At that point the only question would be the size of the global economic pie and hence the upper limit of per capita wealth.
We all know that what's really happening is a globe dotted with 1,000 or more billionaires and 100,000 tenth-of-a-billionaires stockpiling wealth that increasingly has no loyalty to any nationality whatsoever. Money flows to where it increases fastest without reference to any other set of priorities. Consequently, the average Chinese citizen is utterly screwed, as are middle class Americans and the "lazy French" as you put it, E_S.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
12/14/07 1:34pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
I basically agree Jabba, but of those three groups I think middle class Americans are the most politically able to tax some of those billions away and secure a better economic position for themselves, at least for the foreseeable future. This world we are working towards seems to me to have fundamental security and sustainability problems.
And with the upper class's destruction of nationalism, it seems they are proving Marx right. Class is becoming more important than nationalism, he just didn't understand it is much easier for the capitalists to unite than it is for the workers. And when no geographic group of people can organize effectively because there will always be some other group to do the work, at some point the inequality will be so great that worker revolts might destroy the system.
The Americans inherited the British mandate to create this world, but once we figure out it isn't going to help us, who is to say we won't destroy it out of spite? I think the Ron Paul phenomenon isn't something to be dismissed lightly, and if you just cast off the American middle class and create a two class world society, the American middle class still has the power in the form of Ron Paul and his ilk to take down everybody with us.
Frankly we are in the situation every hegemony finds itself. At some point we realize the costs of maintaining the system is greater than the benefit we get from it. We pay for all the security costs while others benefit from the free trade. And when the hegemony decides it is no longer in our best interest to hold the system together, it falls apart. Ron Paul is simply riding this very natural historical phenomenon.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
