Hoodwinked: The Myth of Free Trade

[ProIndividual]

Free trade is not bad. Are we really suggesting that comparative advantage, absolute advantage, The Broken Window Fallacy, labor set free, the fallacy of trade deficits, the fallacy of borders and trade, and the subjective theory of value aren't real? If free trade is so bad, then get rid of all immigrant labor, all outsourcing, all mechanical advances that take jobs, throw up tariffs, and run trade balance or trade surpluses. When your done collapsing your economy, hoola back at me.

[peng1965a]

@ProIndividual Then why did the U.S. do (mostly) just fine with nearly 200 years with tarriffs? 30 years without them and the entire economy is in the shithole....the jobs are gone. I think you've been reading too much corporate propaganda.

[jacofall7]

 free trade just allows corporations to increase profits --temporarily--through lowering wages. We are at the tail end of "free trade" and we be moving back toward "tariffs". The middle --lower classes are broke and fearful of losing jobs and will only use credit to default on it. US Corporations have been "firing" their customers for about 25-30 years and they will reap what they sow.....lower US revenues. Hardship and lower standards of living for decades to come for most Americans.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

I'm confused. Where do these people think Canada as a country is going, exactly?

[greenghost2008]

Free trade is the awnser but i agree with the lady. corperate/state capitailism is bad(makes pure free trade look bad taboot) and democracy is tyranny of the majority.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@greenghost2008 Please name a place where there was freedom but not capitalism.

[ipwnallnubscuzirock]

Protectionism hurts the country its used in more than the country its used on.

[CapoStudios]

Outsourcing assets is retarded...

[RockStudioLive]

Trade benefits the seller, not the buyer. To be mutually beneficial each partner must buy and sell.

China buys our raw materials and sells us manufactured goods of higher value. But China cannot afford our manufactured products.

No country got rich selling off unprocessed materials.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive If trade only benefits the seller...why the heck do you ever buy anything?

[RockStudioLive]

@WideWorldOfWisdom I mean only the seller gets rich. You do not get rich buying. Any trade deal must make individual sense to each party in the transaction providing there is no coercion or deceit. Though the producer may grow rich but the consumer never does.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive But what do you consider "rich"...would you rather have $10 million green pieces of paper, or a mansion, clean water, a bunch of food, and a warm bed?

I think what you're meaning to say is that if you consume without producing, you grow poorer. That is completely different than "trade only benefits the seller." If the buyer did not believe he was getting a benefit worth more than what he was giving up, the transaction wouldn't take place, now would it.

[RockStudioLive]

@WideWorldOfWisdom I have explained my point well enough. I did not say money was wealth. You merely repeated what I said, pretending to correct what I said. Your moniker is highly amusing in its inappropriateness.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive "trade only benefits the seller"..yes, that is a point. It's completely false, but it's a point you made nonetheless.

"only the seller gets rich"..again, another point you made, and again, only true if you think having a bunch of green pieces of paper means you are rich, and having a mansion and food and water means you are poor.

..Because otherwise, it would prove that just because someone has bought something, it doesn't mean he is poorer and the guy who sold it is "richer."

[RockStudioLive]

@WideWorldOfWisdom We are talking long term as I made clear that each transaction at the time appears beneficial. But one cannot be just be a consumer and expect to increase in wealth. Ultimately trade must be a two-way street of exchange of produce or production. We cannot expect to remain wealthly consuming cheap stuff from China and producing nothing.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive And now it's "each transaction at the time APPEARS beneficial"...implying the same nonsense you said originally: "in trade the seller gains & the buyer loses."

I ask u again. If I give u a bunch of green pieces of paper and u give me a mansion in return, are u seriously arguing that I'm a sucker who has been fooled into thinking I'm seeing a benefit from the trade when really it is just u who has gotten anything out of it?

Surely you can't be that dense.

[RockStudioLive]

@WideWorldOfWisdom You are arguing something which I have not said. You are speaking of money. I am speaking of wealth. You seem to maintaining that the consumer becomes richer. At best a consumer breaks even. To become wealthy you must produce. The ratio of production to consumption must be postive or you become poorer.

Have a nice day.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive Are you kidding? The only thing I've done is quote you. You literally said "trade only benefits the seller". Now, if we aren't talking in terms of money, then you must want to speak in terms of barter.

Please answer me this: If one man trades a horse for another man's cow...which man is wealthier? Which one is the seller?

[RockStudioLive]

@WideWorldOfWisdom

YOU MUST PRODUCE MORE THAN YOU CONSUME TO BECOME WEALTHIER.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive That doesn't answer my question. You literally said "trade only benefits the seller". And then you said you weren't talking about money. So we must be talking about barter. So,

Please answer me this: If one man trades a horse for another man's cow...which man is wealthier? Which one is the seller?

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive No answer?

You literally said "trade only benefits the seller". Please answer me this: If one man trades a horse for another man's cow...which man is wealthier? Which one is the seller?

[RockStudioLive]

@WideWorldOfWisdom Answer given. You should seek help for perseverance.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@RockStudioLive Since when is perseverance is an affliction? You DID NOT answer the question. Which one is wealthier? The man who gave away the horse and got the cow, or the man who traded his cow for the horse?

Which one is the seller????

[RockStudioLive]

@WideWorldOfWisdom It's part of obsessive compulsive behaviour. Look are your last three posts.

You have been answered.

[Scientisticsoviet]

@RockStudioLive And reinvest that extra production. In a farm situation that means making more people and having someone make and repairs tools.

[RockStudioLive]

@Scientisticsoviet Free men, free speech, free markets.

[Scientisticsoviet]

@RockStudioLive I hope my reaction was appropriate... I laughed, thinking of course that was sarcasm.

[RockStudioLive]

@Scientisticsoviet Your comment was fine. If more Americans thought the way you do, America would not have elected a socialist for president!

[benjamaiLL]

Stupid. You are an imbecile you believe any of this. It's scary how people turning to protectionism these days. Read history. Read about the last time our country had a major protectionist swing.

[LouGrimaldi]

Sure that's why we are currently funding China's industrial revolution and our manufacturing sucks.

[LouGrimaldi]

I would propose that all corporations keep profit sharing to their employees as part of their "rules of incorporation". Profits must stay here, not there. Provide for Canadians first and then export the surplus. Also, main industries such as oil, gas, electricity should not be commodities traded abroad on the open market but owned by the people for the people. That way we can pay 20 cents a litre and still keep the excess money here in this country, not some billionaire's Geneva bank account.

[benjamaiLL]

Yep. And that's why my SOL is better because I can pay less for something that someone else makes. I don't care about manufacturing jobs for others. I care about prices for me.

[bigpapi255]

That's why you are a greedy anti american pig. Don't care about manufacturing jobs that pay well. Fine, move to China and work 17 hour days for $2 a day in a sweatshop.

[SavageJim01]

Free trade is great, BUT!!!!! Free trade should be controlled and the countries we trade with must undertand it is a PRIVLAGE , not a right.

China manipulates its money and takes other protectionist actions to EXPLOIT the American Consumer.

Decades of this crap and china sucking jobs away from Americans has eventually led to our horrible economy.

All this from UNRESTRICTED free trade when we should have let China know we will not allow them to manipulate the market at our expense.

[indiasucksalways]

Let's talk about "protectionism" for a moment, Mr. Barack Obama:

China Blocks iPhone In China 2/10/09

China Mobile chiefs, however, balked at this. Wang apparently considered the notion of Apple interacting and directly collecting payment from Chinese consumers as a "threat" to the operators dominance over the countrys mobile internet market.

[Seahorse1776]

Free trade in principle is a good thing. Properly defined it means free exchange of goods and services between people and nations without state interference. Treaties like NAFTA and FTAA are not about genuine free trade, but are dangerous programs to merge the nations of the Western hemisphere economically and politically into a regional super-state just like the European Union. The enemy is not America, but any Canadian politician who supports treaties like NAFTA, FTAA etc and internationalism.

[Blucius13]

N.A.F.T.A is not free trade it government managed special interests. True free trade does not call for government driven incentives.

[masteropie001]

Free trade with primarily European country's is healthy. Free trade with 3rd world slave labor country's like Mexico and China is devastating to our standard of living. By its nature it brings our standard of living towards theirs.

[kitkatblues]

As Kevin says, Canada has never needed Free trade and we are sustainable on our own. Free trade takes the voice of the people in this democracy. Canada can decide when, where and how much as a democracy and build infant businesses and buy back Tim Horton's and The Bay...who was dumb enough to sell those to the US?

[TimothyRed1990]

but there are quotas on immigration. How can they import enough people to affect smart americans? people like nurses, doctors, Microsoft Network engineers, etc.

[TimothyRed1990]

Free trade helps people in poorer countries.There are plenty of garment jobs, and hundreds of other jobs that could export their stuff to richer countries where people can have EVEN BETTER JOBS!You should get some education in field that CANT be outsourced. Like computer network admin/technician, nurse or doctor (not programmer, garment worker or basket maker)

[LuciusBrutus]

There are no safe jobs. You can just import labor.

Free trade doesn't work with countries who have different value for labor. It works if all labor is paid about the same on average. What we have is a situation of absolute advantage based on fiat currency. Strong US currency with weak Chinese currency manipulation will be undermined by supply and demand.

[soundcore]

Free Trade is not a new idea. It has long been a goal of the Communists. Google on "Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record".

[free484]

a better title would be " Why Free Trade Sucks Balls"

[deligthelf]

Freetrade is a libratarian pipe dream. It dose not work.

[benjamaiLL]

Of course it doesn't work. Look how good they're living in North Korea!

[regusted]

Bravo! We ALSO need to completely shut out THE SUN. Its cheap imports of light steals jobs from our light bulb manufacturers.

With apologies to Frederic Bastiat.

[AuntFarm]

In order to join the WTO a nation has to agree to adopt wto policies, even if they run counter to that nation's laws. So we have corporations actually making and imposing their own law on countries, regardless of what the citizens in those countries may want for themselves.

[AuntFarm]

ect. (I meant to say markeT forces) The problem that so many people have with the current version of "Free Trade" is that it isnt truly free at all. Its a set (dynamic/changing) set of policies devised by corporate entities based entirely on the accumilation of capitol, without any consideration to the overall neccessities or desires of the people who live in the countries that those policies effect.

[AuntFarm]

This frightens people. And it seems to me that it should.

[AuntFarm]

I would add, Im not looking for an argument, but a discussion. The entity of CORPORATION has no integral or inherent morality. Nothing within it's structure to encourage any sense of ethic or altruistic intention. The loyalty of a corporation, the sole and singular duty of a corporate entity, is the accumilation of profit. This is ammoral (not to specifically say immoral)in nature. Ultimately, such a structure/format places higher WORTH on dollars than on lives.

[freesk8]

I totally agree. Corporations do not have "personhood" or rights as individuals do.

[AuntFarm]

Beg your pardon, i did not know that you were commenting even as I was. You are quite correct in the examples that you give, and the mistake lies with me for not being more clear. As I see it, there are two forms of free trade being discussed here (between you and I) One is TRUE free trade, which is entirely a matter of economic markey forces, the other is IMPOSED free trade, or the imposition of trade policies upon nations by the WTO and IMF world bank.

[freesk8]

Right you are. NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO do not promote true free trade. All of these agreements include special deals for specific industries or countries. They are imposed and not free. We should immediately and unilaterally reduce all of our tarriffs.

[freesk8]

Take an economics course. You don't know what you are talking about.

Free trade makes the poor better off on both sides of borders. It means lower consumer prices. It means some job dislocations in the short term, but in the long term this moves workers into more productive, and hence higher-paying jobs. Free trade means we get to buy the best of what's out there.

[AuntFarm]

how long is that "short term" expected to last? right now the way it looks is that the "we" you refer to means an extremely small percentage of the human population. the term "free trade" is seen to be misleading. what many people believe is that it is in actuality "corporate ownership and control of all human and material resources" can you offer examples of "free trade" feeding the hungry masses or raising the purchasing power of the majority of any specific society?

[freesk8]

Yep. The US, Ireland, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea... All of these countries got rich mostly because of free trade. The poor in these countries are much better off than the poor in countries with more restrictive trade policies. The short term is the length of time it will take Ford workers to retrain for new jobs or to get a job with Toyota.

[luck02]

The "What is more likely test"

Is it more likely that Business Leaders decided to share the wealth and enrich poor economies despite having done exactly the opposite since time immemorial?

Or is it more likely that this is another way of disenfranchising the working class and circumventing hard won employee protections while pocketing the difference...

Profits are on the rise and wages are on the decline... Don't try to tell me it's all for the best...

[freesk8]

You propose a false dichotomoy. True free trade is win-win. But NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO are not free trade. They include special terriffs and protections and subsidies for corporations. You and I agree these are wrong.

True free trade IS for the best, as long as it is voluntary, uncoerced and there is no fraud. Indeed, free trade is your right.

[luck02]

National economies can not be subjected to the whims of international organizations... In a perfect world I would agree with you... But we don't live in a perfect world... The primary issues with NAFTA is the elevation of the corporation to an entity on par with national governments... When governments are forced to submit to foreign corporations we lose our sovereignty and that price is always too high...

[freesk8]

I agree with you, but I am equally concerned about the power of governments. There is as much or more evil going on these days in governments and by politicians than in corporations and by CEO's. Governments are by far the largest and most powerful organizations on the planet, and power corrupts. It is when corporations and governments collude that the worst evil is done. On their own, corporations can't do half the damage.

[freesk8]

National economies should ALSO not be subject to the whims of politicians and governments! NAFTA, WTO, etc's problems stem from the special subsidies given to particular industries and corporations, not in their negotiated reductions in tarriffs. The poor in developing nations want nothing more than access to US commodities markets, where they undercut the prices that US corporations can meet.