NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm very interested in finding out what the general consensus is on Nationstates is concerning free trade and the globalist doctrine. Of course, it can be a cause for development and prosperity in poor, developing nations. But in the process, it causes many people in developed nations to lose their jobs. Since the start of the 1980's, over 30 MILLION people in the United States have lost their job to the global economy. As we're aiding some world troublespots, we're pulling the rug out form under developed economies, increasing hardship, and lining the pockets of those few at the top of the food chain through exploitation of foreign labor.

Frankly, I personally feel it's a terribly flawed system masquerading as a way to help the world.

How do you feel?

i don't think its that bad

Good. Because last time I checked, developed countries didn't need help. If they have to sacrifice getting another Mercedes for their darling daughters to help Third World workers actually feeding their kids, then good. I would write more, but I've just done a big long RP and my fingers need rest.

It's not about giving up useless frivalties, it's about people losing jobs. And job growth has basically been stunted in the USA, unless of course you don't mind waiting tables for $4 an hour.

Whatever we have now seems flawed to me. 'Free Trade' when used by the US/EU usually seems to mean 'sell your public services to European or American corporations, and we'll still subsidise our primary industries'.

In otehr words, it helps the rich countries, not the poor. Fair trade would help the third world without lining the pockets of the dictators.

It's like the industrialisation. A lot of people lost their jobs to it but in the end it contributed immensely to the economy.

Free trade is a disastrous system. Since 30 years, it leaded to a huge increase in poverty, both in poor and in rich countries. Rich countries are, globally, richer than ever and poor countries poorer than ever, and even inside those countries, the rich are richer and the poor are poorer.

Free trade is a totalitarian system, it's the dicatorship of the wealthy, of the stock markets, who are given the power to act they please, ravaging economies, destroying local industries, and in facts acting like a veto power against all social measure that a country could take ("you want to increase healthcare or social help or whatever ? fine, I'll go elsewhere, and that'll break your economy").

Regulated trade, protecting the weak and protecting the social systems, allowing countries to share ressources (of course, some kind of goods can only be produced in some area of the world) in a mutually beneficient way is the solution. But free trade is not that. It's a tool in the hand of the wealthiest to impose their global domination over the world, to get even more wealthy, and to break any governement wanting to improve the living standard of its population.

I'm very interested in finding out what the general consensus is on Nationstates is concerning free trade and the globalist doctrine. Of course, it can be a cause for development and prosperity in poor, developing nations. But in the process, it causes many people in developed nations to lose their jobs. Since the start of the 1980's, over 30 MILLION people in the United States have lost their job to the global economy. As we're aiding some world troublespots, we're pulling the rug out form under developed economies, increasing hardship, and lining the pockets of those few at the top of the food chain through exploitation of foreign labor.

Frankly, I personally feel it's a terribly flawed system masquerading as a way to help the world.

How do you feel?

Boo hoo, Americans are losing their jobs. Free trade has been raping the developing world for decades. It is an insideous, outdated system designed specifically to screw over the poorest people in the poorest nations so that three fat white guys in the wealthiest countries can get even fatter and richer.

Free trade disgusts me. Fair trade is a system that actually *does* help the porest in the world. It means people actually get paid what their goods are worth. My partner and I will only buy fair trade when it comes to tea, coffee, chocolate, bananas, etc.

The trouble with fair trade becomming increasingly popular is that you get the most corrupt companies jumping on the band wagon. Nestle recently introduced a fair trade coffe. Now while it has been authorised and I don't doubt that it is genuine, it lulls the general public into thinking that Nestle give a damn. Any semi-informed person knows this isn't the case and it saddens me to think that the international Nestle boycott may be harmed by this little trick.

Globalazation is bad... but it's gone too far to be scaled back. We can't just force companies in America to shut down their foreign factories and move back here.

Unless, the immigrants start moving which equals cheap labor right in their own backyard!

Free trade has been a boon to the world. Over the past few decades, productivity and economic growth have accelerated worldwide, halving the number of people in poverty and increasing overall employment. The increase in international trade and finance have made the world economy more stable, which has a lot to do with both the decreasing severity and frequency of world recessions since the Depression. It is also possible that world income inequality is falling as measured by improvements in the Gini index since the 1970's.

World Poverty since 1981:http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2571960

The tighter trade networks have undoubtedly been responsible for the lack of large-scale international warfare since the end of World War II, and there is direct casual correlation within the US between trade liberalization and massive gains in employment, productivity, and real wages.

However, problems remain in particular the subsidization of developed nations' agricultural sectors and politically sensitive industries, and barriers in the developing world to FDI and high tariffs/quotas on products. Nevertheless,

Free trade has been a boon to the world. Over the past few decades, productivity and economic growth have accelerated worldwide, halving the number of people in poverty and increasing overall employment. The increase in international trade and finance have made the world economy more stable, which has a lot to do with both the decreasing severity and frequency of world recessions since the Depression. It is also possible that world income inequality is falling as measured by improvements in the Gini index since the 1970's.

World Poverty since 1981:http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2571960


Repeat after me: having a low income does NOT necessarily mean you are living in poverty. Getting an increase in income does NOT necessarily equate an increase in standard of living. Most third world countries had perfectly functioning economic systems for which those statements held true. Now they do not. While income has increased, so has poverty. People earn more, but live in worse circumstances. See e.g. Planet Dialetics by Wolfgang Sachs for a slightly more in depth exploration of the issue.

Free trade has been a boon to the world. Over the past few decades, productivity and economic growth have accelerated worldwide, halving the number of people in poverty and increasing overall employment. The increase in international trade and finance have made the world economy more stable, which has a lot to do with both the decreasing severity and frequency of world recessions since the Depression. It is also possible that world income inequality is falling as measured by improvements in the Gini index since the 1970's.

World Poverty since 1981:http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2571960

The tighter trade networks have undoubtedly been responsible for the lack of large-scale international warfare since the end of World War II, and there is direct casual correlation within the US between trade liberalization and massive gains in employment, productivity, and real wages.

However, problems remain in particular the subsidization of developed nations' agricultural sectors and politically sensitive industries, and barriers in the developing world to FDI and high tariffs/quotas on products. Nevertheless,

And if you really know what you're talking about, you'll know that you can't throw in an article by a researcher for The World Bank, one of the institutions thriving upon poverty, and pretend that it is authorititive and neutral.

Check out this essay: http://www.ingridrobeyns.nl/Downloads/globalpoor.pdf

It goes into some of the reasons why World Bank data should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The point is not whether Free Trade is good bar or ugly,
the point is whether Free Trade works in our favour.


Now I suppose that the answer to that question depends on who the us implied in ours is... but rephrasing it might shed some more light onto the discussion.

Globalazation is bad... but it's gone too far to be scaled back. We can't just force companies in America to shut down their foreign factories and move back here.

Unless, the immigrants start moving which equals cheap labor right in their own backyard!


I don't really know enough of the pros and cons of freetrade to make a knowledgable contribution to the tread, but I will just say what! about the comment above.

Far from being bad, I feel it is the only way forward, otherwise we get what? Tribalization, misunderstanding and miscomunication, war, despots lining their own pockets over the advancment of thier peoples. Naaa globalisation is the only way forward.

One more comment I feel I must make regarding the 30 million unemployment figure the original poster made. We are not insects, we are humans, and as such are more than capable of adaptation, we can learn more than one skill, anybody and I mean anybody can do this. If you lose your job, get another, even if it means learning new skills you can do it you know. Anybody and again I mean anybody can go out and find them selfs a job, so it may be a shitty job, it may be for a shitty wage, go out and look after yourself it is up you you how you live life.

Put your hand out for umm handouts, or work at makeing your life better for you, we all have that choice and the capability to suceed.

Far from being bad, I feel it is the only way forward, otherwise we get what? Tribalization, misunderstanding and miscomunication, war, despots lining their own pockets over the advancment of thier peoples.

because capitalists never disagree...

Put your hand out for umm handouts, or work at makeing your life better for you, we all have that choice and the capability to suceed.

Or die because you don't have education or opportunities near you.

Most capitalists say there will be a 'ground level' of unemployment. If this is inevitable it means some of us will not get employment because there's never enough jobs to go around.

If it isn't inevitable, why has full employment only occured in managed economies?

If it isn't inevitable, why has full employment only occured in managed economies?


*frimping huge grin*

Because only so-called managed economies ever displayed the kind of inefficiency that makes the production of one single needle take one full man-hour...

*frimping huge grin*

Because only so-called managed economies ever displayed the kind of inefficiency that makes the production of one single needle take one full man-hour...

And now, pray tell, share why "not being as efficient as possible" is the worst thing ever. As well as how you define "efficiency".

And I really wonder how people who advocate a system that wastes 10 times what would be need to provide every single human being of the planet with clean water, food, housing, basic education and healthcare in completly useless advertising can speak about "efficiency".

Capitalism is, inherently, completly inefficient. We spend more ressources fighting against each other in the economical war than we spend finding solutions for the most fundamental problems of mankind like starvation, water, widespread disease or the need of alternative energy sources.

And now, pray tell, share why "not being as efficient as possible" is the worst thing ever. As well as how you define "efficiency".

Been to a Polish textile mill anno 1980?
Compare it to a belgian textile mill anno 1890.

The reason they shot that part of the movie Daens http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104046/ in Poland is because they still had exactly the same machinery still in place and operation.

And I really wonder how people who advocate a system that wastes 10 times what would be need to provide every single human being of the planet with clean water, food, housing, basic education and healthcare in completly useless advertising can speak about "efficiency".

Capitalism is, inherently, completly inefficient. We spend more ressources fighting against each other in the economical war than we spend finding solutions for the most fundamental problems of mankind like starvation, water, widespread disease or the need of alternative energy sources.

Now go and wonder how come the SovUnion ca 1980 somehow, with a GDP of somewhere between 10 and 30 % of the US, managed to polute more than the US.

It's the basic 'virtue' of socialism. Compared with it, everything else ( no matter how bad it might be ) looks great...

Now go and wonder how come the SovUnion ca 1980 somehow, with a GDP of somewhere between 10 and 30 % of the US, managed to polute more than the US.

First, GDP is a completly inaccurate measure of "wealth", and even more so when comparing different kind of economies. In USSR, many things were free or kept at very, very low prices, and therefore where not counted inside the GDP. On the other hand, completly useless stuff like advertising are counted inside the GDP.

That said, I've no idea if your numbers are true or not, and what they count. "Polute more" is very vague, since there are many, many form of pollution, and itself doesn't mean much.

But even if what you say were true, it doesn't even lead to your conclusion. It leads to the fact that USSR-style planned economy is not good. I never opposed that. I don't know if it's worse or less worse than capitalism, because there are too many factors, but that's not the problem. The problem is how to build an economy that doesn't lead to poverty and misery, that doesn't waste more ressources in fighting each other than in building together. And that are _inherent_ flaws to capitalism, while the flaws of USSR had nothing to do with socialism nor communism, but only with totalitarianism and a very caricatural form and socialsim, something which was IMHO closer to "state capitalism" than to "socialism".

First, GDP is a completly inaccurate measure of "wealth", and even more so when comparing different kind of economies. In USSR, many things were free or kept at very, very low prices, and therefore where not counted inside the GDP. On the other hand, completly useless stuff like advertising are counted inside the GDP.

That said, I've no idea if your numbers are true or not, and what they count. "Polute more" is very vague, since there are many, many form of pollution, and itself doesn't mean much.

But even if what you say were true, it doesn't even lead to your conclusion. It leads to the fact that USSR-style planned economy is not good. I never opposed that. I don't know if it's worse or less worse than capitalism, because there are too many factors, but that's not the problem. The problem is how to build an economy that doesn't lead to poverty and misery, that doesn't waste more ressources in fighting each other than in building together. And that are _inherent_ flaws to capitalism, while the flaws of USSR had nothing to do with socialism nor communism, but only with totalitarianism and a very caricatural form and socialsim, something which was IMHO closer to "state capitalism" than to "socialism".


Friend, the problems with state socialism or whatever have nothing to do with good and bad, but everything with the very plain and simple fact that managed economies have an infinite universe of factors that they MUST take into account. THAT, and nothing about good and bad, is the cause of their endemic inefficiency.

But please - don't try to point out the glories of a system that appearently hasn't actually insisted ( such as 'true socialism' ).

You cannot expect me to glorify your snark until you have actually produced a snark, you know?

because capitalists never disagree...

Or die because you don't have education or opportunities near you.

Most capitalists say there will be a 'ground level' of unemployment. If this is inevitable it means some of us will not get employment because there's never enough jobs to go around.

If it isn't inevitable, why has full employment only occured in managed economies?

Hey Anarchic,

Lets take your points one at a time. First of though, I am not a capatalist, I come from great hippie stock:)


Yes people disagree all of the time, but if we had a global goverment and a system of global power then at the very least we would have no more war for power, land grabbing, oil or other resources. Isn't that better than having a state of affairs where one country can invade another for whatever reason. I am also an advocate of open boarders and freedom of movement for all of Earths citerzens.

Education is a big bugbear of mine and I fully agree with you on that issue. Even so though if you have not been given the best chances in life, then you have to work harder, fair? Hardly but it is the way things are at the moment.
Opertunities, as a free, thinking, lifing human, how much help should you expect from others, how much help are you personaly giveing to those worse off than yourself? oppertunities, we are not animals, we are intelegent beings who can plan, and provide for ourselves. if oppertunieties are few, then find a way to make them more or better, or create your own. Fuck me, I have had to, would it not sap your sense of worth holding your hand up for handouts constantly? Yes of course there are poor and needy people, and yes it is our duty to provide in any way we can for them, but how does that saying go about helping those who help themselves? Or what about the one about teaching a man to fish? If life is hard, then who is it up to to make it better? Our selves or the state?

Umemployment, not enough jobs? That is basicaly bullshit, can't get a job, make one, no body will employ you, be your own boss, have no skills go out and fuckin get some, do not be lazy and then complain that life is shit. There really are enough jobs out there, and as I say we are not stupid, we humans can actualy do anything that we set our minds to.

I'd like to say something about exploitation. Exploitation implies that the quality of life for the exploited individual is decreased by the actions of the alleged exploiter. Therefore, the following situation does not constitute exploitation by the employer unless the employer caused the state of destitution: A person makes an agreement to sell her/his labor for what we would consider to be an extraordinary low amount because she/he lives in destitution and a low wage is enough to improve her/his life.

Hypothetically, if an individual decides to freely participate in an agreement then the quality of her/his life must improve as a result. The idea of a freely made agreement, as noted previously, includes an agreement made out of necessity so long as that necessity is not the fault of the other participant in the agreement or anyone else who has an interest in the agreement. (Furthermore, if that necessity is the fault of a third party, it is that third party and not the employer who should be labeled as the exploiter, so long as the employer is not in any sort of collaboration with that third party.)

Of course, I recognize that, even by this definition, not all of the agreements involved in globalization have been freely made. For example, when factory workers for Nike in Sri Lanka decided to go on strike, Nike called in the Sri Lankan government to forcibly brake up the strike. Examples such as this constitute slavery and do not reflect the free market ideology.

One might say that employers who seek out destitute potential employees so that they may pay lower wages are taking advantage of the situation. Nevertheless, they are only doing so in a way that allieviates the destitution of these potential employees.

Finally, this hypothesis (that any freely made agreement must necessarily improve the quality of life for both participants) makes the assumption that the participants are rational and intelligent. Rationality implies that, given the proper information, a person has the capacity to make beneficial decisions. I personally believe that all people, excluding children and the mentally ill, fit the definition of rational. Intelligence implies that a person has the information necessary to differentiate between decisions that would be beneficial and those that would be harmful. I believe that many people, expecially in developing nations, do not fit this assumption.

Therefore, a freely made agreement could potentially be harmful to these individuals. Furthermore, if an employer seeks out uninformed potential employees to take advantage of their incapability of differentiating between beneficial and harmful decisions, this may properly be labeled as a form of exploitation. However, I believe that the most efficient way to end this form of exploitation is to simply provide the necessary information to these uninformed individuals so that they may make only beneficial agreements.

The free market is a beautiful thing, if it actually occurs. No other economic model can match it for efficiency and fairness.

I'd like to say something about exploitation. Exploitation implies that the quality of life for the exploited individual is decreased by the actions of the alleged exploiter. Therefore, the fact that a person makes an agreement to sell her/his labor for what we would consider to be an extraordinary low amount because she/he currently lives in destitution and a low wage is enough to improve her/his life does not constitute exploitation by the employer unless the employer caused the destitution. Hypothetically, if an individual decides to freely participate in an agreement then the quality of her/his life must improve as a result. The idea of a freely made agreement, as noted previously, includes an agreement made out of necessity so long as that necessity is not the fault of the other participant in the agreement or anyone else who has an interest in the agreement. (Furthermore, if that necessity is the fault of a third party, it is that third party and not the employer who should be labeled as the exploiter, so long as the third party is not in any sort of collaboration with the employer.) Of course, I recognize that, even by this definition, not all of the agreements involved in globalization have been freely made. For example, when factory workers for Nike in Sri Lanka decided to go on strike, Nike called in the Sri Lankan government to forcibly brake up the strike. Examples such as this constitute slavery and do not reflect the free market ideology. One might say that employers who seek out destitute potential employees so that they may pay lower wages are taking advantage of the situation. Nevertheless, they are only doing so in a way that allieviates the destitution. Finally, this hypothesis that any freely made agreement must necessarily improve the quality of life for both participants makes the assumption that the participants are both rational and intelligent. Rationality implies that, given the proper information, a person has the capacity to make beneficial decisions. I personally believe that all people excluding children and the mentally ill fit the definition of rational. Intelligence implies that a person has the information necessary to differentiate between decisions that would be beneficial and those that would be harmful. I believe that many people, expecially in the developing nations, do not fit this assumption. Therefore, a freely made agreement could potentially be harmful to these individuals. Furthermore, if an employer seeks out uninformed potential employees to take advantage of their incapability of differentiating between beneficial and harmful decisions, this may properly be labeled as a form of exploitation. However, I believe that the most efficient way to end this form of exploitation is to provide the necessary information to citizens of these uninformed individuals so that they may make only beneficial agreements.

Well, I know you like saying stuff about exploitation, but thats all I know.

Spacing and paragraphs are your friend!

The free market is a beautiful thing, if it actually occurs. No other economic model can match it for efficiency and fairness.

The free market isn't very fair though. Efficient, maybe, but not fair.

That's because, as it is, whoever has more power can just say "So... the minimum price it this huh? Okay, well, I won't buy it for less" or the seller can just say that they won't sell for anything except the maximum price.

That means that there's a lot of trade that won't occur or won't be fair, with only a minority of trade actually being conducted fairly.

Hence, mixed economies are so much better, but import tariffs suck.

The free market isn't very fair though. Efficient, maybe, but not fair.
Actually, whether a free market is fair entirely depends on one's definition of fairness and there is a significant amount of disagreement with regard to that definition as it applies to economics.

A proponent of the labor theory of value would say that resources are fairly allocated when such allocation is proportional to the amount of effort that individuals put forth in improving society. A person with a Capitalist attitude about fairness would say that a person fairly deserves to own herself/himself plus anything she/he creates or discovers plus anything that she/he receives in a freely made agreement minus anything she/he relinquishes in a freely made agreement. Some capitalists would add that in order for an agreement to be fair it must be honest as well as free. Furthermore, different capitilists define honesty in different ways. A sort of nihilistic view on fairness is that one fairly deserves whatever one can get through any means, or that fairness does not exist.

That's because, as it is, whoever has more power can just say "So... the minimum price it this huh? Okay, well, I won't buy it for less" or the seller can just say that they won't sell for anything except the maximum price.

That means that there's a lot of trade that won't occur or won't be fair, with only a minority of trade actually being conducted fairly.
Once again, whether one thinks these trades are fair depends upon one's definition of fairness. Furthermore, according to the idea that agreements must be freely made in order to be fair, no individual can fairly gain enough power to force anyone to agree to a price that would not be beneficial. (See my previous post concerning exploitation.)

Finally, a trade that does not occur because the mininum price of the seller is higher than the maximum price of the buyer would not be a useful trade. This is because the seller sets her/his minimum at the minimum price at which the agreement would be beneficial to her/him, while the buyer sets her/his maximum price at the maximum price at which the agreement would be beneficial to her/him.

Free trade is a disastrous system. Since 30 years, it leaded to a huge increase in poverty, both in poor and in rich countries. Rich countries are, globally, richer than ever and poor countries poorer than ever, and even inside those countries, the rich are richer and the poor are poorer.

Free trade is a totalitarian system, it's the dicatorship of the wealthy, of the stock markets, who are given the power to act they please, ravaging economies, destroying local industries, and in facts acting like a veto power against all social measure that a country could take ("you want to increase healthcare or social help or whatever ? fine, I'll go elsewhere, and that'll break your economy").

Regulated trade, protecting the weak and protecting the social systems, allowing countries to share ressources (of course, some kind of goods can only be produced in some area of the world) in a mutually beneficient way is the solution. But free trade is not that. It's a tool in the hand of the wealthiest to impose their global domination over the world, to get even more wealthy, and to break any governement wanting to improve the living standard of its population.
Very well put. This "free trade" system is only to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
You do need regulations to prevent exploitation.

Of course free trade is a good thing, sillies. So what if thirty million people have lost their jobs because of increased competition from abroad. Almost all of them have gotten new jobs since then. Some have even gotten higher paying jobs, while at the same time, the decreases in the cost of labor have been passed on to the consumer, making stuff cheaper.

And now, pray tell, share why "not being as efficient as possible" is the worst thing ever. As well as how you define "efficiency".
Because when you are not as efficient as possible, that means you're producing waste.

To put it in Orwellian terms: free trade bad, fair trade good.

To put it in Orwellian terms: free trade bad, fair trade good.


Why, you're not a sheep bleating out some pig's party line are you Jello? ;)

Free trade IS fair trade.

Why, you're not a sheep bleating out some pig's party line are you Jello? ;)Lol. No, but that seemed to be the simplest way of saying it. I suppose making it into a mantra would make it more easily remembered.

Free trade IS fair trade.No, free trade as it is currently practiced is inherently unfair.

Lol. No, but that seemed to be the simplest way of saying it. I suppose making it into a mantra would make it more easily remembered.

No, free trade as it is currently practiced is inherently unfair.

I have no problem with free trade between two parties with similar labour practices. Free trade with nations that don't live up to certian labour standards are hardly fair to compete with.

I have no problem with free trade between two parties with similar labour practices. Free trade with nations that don't live up to certian labour standards are hardly fair to compete with.Exactly, and free trade as it is currently practiced is leading to the undermining of labor standards, among other things.

Exactly, and free trade as it is currently practiced is leading to the undermining of labor standards, among other things.

So I take it you're not one of those people that believe that shipping production out to China will turn that country into a modern-day Athens?

So I take it you're not one of those people that believe that shipping production out to China will turn that country into a modern-day Athens?Lol. No, I fail to see how exploiting Chinamen (and women) is going to make them like your system.

Lol. No, I fail to see how exploiting Chinamen (and women) is going to make them like your system.

It's hard to imagine traditionally authoritarian China emerging as a democracy. But if Taiwan and Hong Kong are any indication, it's far from impossible.

There's no doubt in my mind that the opening of trade with China was about liberalising the labour costs of large corporations in the west, rather than trying to 'democratise' China. Although, I have to admit, market liberalisatiion in China is already starting to make some fundamental changes to the way that the Chinese express themselves. It's hard to imagine another Tianenmen Square sort of incident taking place right now.

And exploitation is relative. China is most definitely benefitting from the trade it's receiving. But democracy? Time will tell...

It's hard to imagine traditionally authoritarian China emerging as a democracy. But if Taiwan and Hong Kong are any indication, it's far from impossible.

There's no doubt in my mind that the opening of trade with China was about liberalising the labour costs of large corporations in the west, rather than trying to 'democratise' China. Although, I have to admit, market liberalisatiion in China is already starting to make some fundamental changes to the way that the Chinese express themselves. It's hard to imagine another Tianenmen Square sort of incident taking place right now.

And exploitation is relative. China is most definitely benefitting from the trade it's receiving. But democracy? Time will tell...China might be benefitting, but are those benefits being felt across the board? Unlikely.

China might be benefitting, but are those benefits being felt across the board? Unlikely.

From what little I know (and it's not a lot really), most people in China are benefitting to some degree. Everyone to the same degree? Obviously not. But that's still got to be better than the position that they were in before Deng Xiaoping decided to put some common sense in place.

From what little I know (and it's not a lot really), most people in China are benefitting to some degree. Everyone to the same degree? Obviously not. But that's still got to be better than the position that they were in before Deng Xiaoping decided to put some common sense in place.Well, because pretty much all of the factories are moving to China, they are experiencing a labor shortage there which is driving up wages. However, factory owners are talking of moving factories to Vietnam and other countries with lower standards of living, so any gains that they have will be lessened when the factories move.

Well, because pretty much all of the factories are moving to China, they are experiencing a labor shortage there which is driving up wages. However, factory owners are talking of moving factories to Vietnam and other countries with lower standards of living, so any gains that they have will be lessened when the factories move.


So, the problem is that things are so good that there aren't enough people to do the work? Some factories will move to other nations (and start the whole process over again there), but I highly doubt all of them would go. Plus, the increased industrialization and technological growth can only benefit the Chinese in the long run. (Unless you're an anti-industry, peak-oil type.)

So, the end result, to me, would be that China has largely benefitted from free trade. The west has lower pricing I suppose, and a lot more low paying service sector jobs.

But I think as technology and industrialization advances, it will take less and less people to produce the goods we're consuming, and most of us will be in low paying service-based jobs, with lots of low priced goods to choose from.

I am always flabbergasted by the froth at the mouth ignorance that is so common among anti-globalization kids.

Why not actually learn something about economics before you spout off meaningless drivel? When you can’t think past meaningless slogans, you should keep your mouth shut.

I laugh at the whole ‘fair trade’ concept. What constitutes fair? Free trade means you can enter into any deal you want. If you don’t think it’s fair – don’t do it. You have that choice.

Pointing out that some people benefit more than others just shows that you are one of those mean little selfish people who would rather drag everyone down into the mud rather than see one person getting slightly more than you do. So what if some people make an extra 10% while others get an extra 50%? Everyone is better off. Why should we cut everyone’s standard of living so that you can feel that everything is ‘fair’ and nobody gets a penny more than you do?

When you quote statistics that say 30 million people have lost their jobs, surely you must realize how badly you are distorting things to make your point. And if you have to rely on misinformation and deception I hope that there must be at least a little doubt in you somewhere that says that is wrong. If the economy had shrunk, then yes, you could say that – but if you are going to comment on how 30 million were lost, you need to point out that there is still a vast net gain in employment. Anything less is underhanded.

The reason why there is a ‘natural’ level of unemployment is not because evil capitalists structure the economy so that there are always more people than jobs; it is because people change jobs. They don’t want to work doing the same thing at the same place for their entire lives. Sometimes it takes a couple months to find something that you want to do. Very rarely can someone who is truly looking fail to find a job in a couple months. There are so many jobs all over the place – the problem is with people not wanting the first job you see. Once again it is all down to personal choice.

The freedom to choose for yourself is a great freedom indeed. I suspect that many people who oppose liberal economic systems stem from a fear of life not being entirely certain with everything you're going to do mapped out by the state from cradle to grave. Get over it. Life is uncertain – stop being afraid of it and stop trying to prevent people from living their own lives.

Capitalism is a great system because it allows choice. You can choose what brand of soda you like, you're not stuck only drinking Commie-Cola. Ever see the movie Moscow on the Hudson? In particular that scene where the main character (a Russian defector) goes to the supermarket and asks the guy where the coffee line is. Eventually he gets told to go to an aisle filled with many different brands of coffee and faints.

You go to ‘fair trade’ stores to buy stuff – good for you. Surprise – you are exercising capitalism by making that choice of what to buy. Would you rather I dictate to you exactly what brands of products you are going to buy (at twice market price)?

Are you so much more wise and capable that you know all and can dictate that a mother of 3 on a tight food budget has to pay a lot more? She shouldn’t have the choice?

-snip-
To be fair, (;) ) I think your being a little hard on Socialists. The thing that you need to accept is that some people have a different value of fairness than you. While Capitalists define fairness in terms of property rights (a definition that you apparently assumed that everyone shares), Socialist hold that a fair system of resource allocation must adhere to their concept of labor or effort. Therefore, although we might be able to successfully argue against regulation, we can't really touch the issue of redistribution because it is entirely based on their Robin-Hoodesque idea of fairness which, like any other idea of fairness, cannot be disproven.

Furthermore, many of them argue that Capitalism takes away free choice (at least to some extant) by forcing people to respect private property. That, imho, is probably their best argument, but you didn't even mention it in your post.

Most capitalists say there will be a 'ground level' of unemployment. If this is inevitable it means some of us will not get employment because there's never enough jobs to go around.

If it isn't inevitable, why has full employment only occured in managed economies?

Totally incorrect. "Full employment" does not equal total employment; what it means is that anyone who wants to get a job and is qualified can do so, and that there is no cyclical unemployment. The range for full unemployment is 4-5%; therefore, full employment has been reached recently and is currently within that range now in the US.

Full capacity use of labor is terrible for the economy under normal circumstances because it drives inflation and if mandated may force the sacrifice of productivity upgrades that will ultimately slow economic growth, living standards, and reduce employment.

No, free trade as it is currently practiced is inherently unfair.

Psst... that's not free trade you're talking about.

And in any case, as you're a socialist pinko commie scum, it's highly unlikely you have a sane concept of what is fair and what isn't.

*snip*

Hold on there fella! Whoa!

There's a difference between 'socialists' and capitalists who hesitate over free trade. While I agree with your take on the view that some 'socialists' feel that everyone should be brought down to the same level, that's not really what the free trade issue is about.

I think anyone who works in a factory that is shut down to be shipped overseas has a right to be a little disgruntled. What if those jobs are sent to a country where collective bargaining is illegal, or labour laws are non-existant? It removes the voice of the employee in the employer/employee relationship. It creates an environment where employers call 'all' the shots. Sure, prices should be generally lower for most goods, but for those people who went from high-earning jobs to low-paying ones, it's small consolation.

Globalisation on this scale is a relatively new thing in the grand scheme of things. It's only natural that we should question it before we jump in head first.

In response to the original post:

Free trade is good.

Globalisation should start only when the world is ready for it. At the moment, only the industrialised nations are, and even then only somewhat.

I am always flabbergasted by the froth at the mouth ignorance that is so common among anti-globalization kids.

Why not actually learn something about economics before you spout off meaningless drivel? When you can’t think past meaningless slogans, you should keep your mouth shut.

I laugh at the whole ‘fair trade’ concept. What constitutes fair? Free trade means you can enter into any deal you want. If you don’t think it’s fair – don’t do it. You have that choice.

Pointing out that some people benefit more than others just shows that you are one of those mean little selfish people who would rather drag everyone down into the mud rather than see one person getting slightly more than you do. So what if some people make an extra 10% while others get an extra 50%? Everyone is better off. Why should we cut everyone’s standard of living so that you can feel that everything is ‘fair’ and nobody gets a penny more than you do?

When you quote statistics that say 30 million people have lost their jobs, surely you must realize how badly you are distorting things to make your point. And if you have to rely on misinformation and deception I hope that there must be at least a little doubt in you somewhere that says that is wrong. If the economy had shrunk, then yes, you could say that – but if you are going to comment on how 30 million were lost, you need to point out that there is still a vast net gain in employment. Anything less is underhanded.

The reason why there is a ‘natural’ level of unemployment is not because evil capitalists structure the economy so that there are always more people than jobs; it is because people change jobs. They don’t want to work doing the same thing at the same place for their entire lives. Sometimes it takes a couple months to find something that you want to do. Very rarely can someone who is truly looking fail to find a job in a couple months. There are so many jobs all over the place – the problem is with people not wanting the first job you see. Once again it is all down to personal choice.

The freedom to choose for yourself is a great freedom indeed. I suspect that many people who oppose liberal economic systems stem from a fear of life not being entirely certain with everything you're going to do mapped out by the state from cradle to grave. Get over it. Life is uncertain – stop being afraid of it and stop trying to prevent people from living their own lives.

Capitalism is a great system because it allows choice. You can choose what brand of soda you like, you're not stuck only drinking Commie-Cola. Ever see the movie Moscow on the Hudson? In particular that scene where the main character (a Russian defector) goes to the supermarket and asks the guy where the coffee line is. Eventually he gets told to go to an aisle filled with many different brands of coffee and faints.

You go to ‘fair trade’ stores to buy stuff – good for you. Surprise – you are exercising capitalism by making that choice of what to buy. Would you rather I dictate to you exactly what brands of products you are going to buy (at twice market price)?

Are you so much more wise and capable that you know all and can dictate that a mother of 3 on a tight food budget has to pay a lot more? She shouldn’t have the choice?

First of all, you are presenting a false dichotomy: it is possible to have qualms with globalization without at the same time being a command-and-control Stalinist (heck, it's possible to be a foaming-at-the-mouth communist, in your words, without being a command-and-control Stalinist).

More importantly, however, I'm not sure you appreciate what exactly "freedom of choice" means, because you are advocating a system that at present seems to be stifling the very thing you prize. If you look at what companies are actually doing to their workers, you would be hard-pressed to claim any rational person would choose that sort of contract, and in fact, no rational person does. People under the duress of starvation do. A person who is in such a position cannot be considered "freely entering into a contract", because the only choice he has is between slavery and death.

Hold on there fella! Whoa!

There's a difference between 'socialists' and capitalists who hesitate over free trade. While I agree with your take on the view that some 'socialists' feel that everyone should be brought down to the same level, that's not really what the free trade issue is about.

I think anyone who works in a factory that is shut down to be shipped overseas has a right to be a little disgruntled. What if those jobs are sent to a country where collective bargaining is illegal, or labour laws are non-existant? It removes the voice of the employee in the employer/employee relationship. It creates an environment where employers call 'all' the shots. Sure, prices should be generally lower for most goods, but for those people who went from high-earning jobs to low-paying ones, it's small consolation.

Globalisation on this scale is a relatively new thing in the grand scheme of things. It's only natural that we should question it before we jump in head first.
Yeah, you're right, we are specifically discussing free trade.

I think the important thing to recognize about job losses due to free trade is that they are only temporary. While it is true that some of the replacement jobs that people have found are not as high paying, lower prices probably constitute enough of a benefit to significantly offset the misfortune of having a lower paying job. Also, the statistic that I heard about job losses due to outsourcing (from my economics professor) was 1 in 500. Since I trust my econ professor to be reasonably unbiased, and I don't know where the statistic "30 million jobs since 1980" comes from, I have to lean toward the 1 in 500 stat. (Of course, maybe there have been 15 billion jobs in the U.S. economy since 1980. :p )

First of all, you are presenting a false dichotomy: it is possible to have qualms with globalization without at the same time being a command-and-control Stalinist (heck, it's possible to be a foaming-at-the-mouth communist, in your words, without being a command-and-control Stalinist).

More importantly, however, I'm not sure you appreciate what exactly "freedom of choice" means, because you are advocating a system that at present seems to be stifling the very thing you prize. If you look at what companies are actually doing to their workers, you would be hard-pressed to claim any rational person would choose that sort of contract, and in fact, no rational person does. People under the duress of starvation do. A person who is in such a position cannot be considered "freely entering into a contract", because the only choice he has is between slavery and death.
Read my argument on exploitation in post #24 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10708440&postcount=24) of this thread. Among other things, it outlines exactly why contracts such as this, which are entered into out of necessity, do not necessarily constitute exploitation by the employer. To outline that point for you:
The reason why a rational person would agree to such a contract is that it improves the quality of her/his life in that situation. Unless the employers created the situation of destitution which caused the contract to become beneficial, it is illogical to label their actions as exploitive since those actions only improved the quality of life for the allegedly exploited individuals.

Hold on there fella! Whoa!

There's a difference between 'socialists' and capitalists who hesitate over free trade. While I agree with your take on the view that some 'socialists' feel that everyone should be brought down to the same level, that's not really what the free trade issue is about.

I think anyone who works in a factory that is shut down to be shipped overseas has a right to be a little disgruntled. What if those jobs are sent to a country where collective bargaining is illegal, or labour laws are non-existant? It removes the voice of the employee in the employer/employee relationship. It creates an environment where employers call 'all' the shots. Sure, prices should be generally lower for most goods, but for those people who went from high-earning jobs to low-paying ones, it's small consolation.

Globalisation on this scale is a relatively new thing in the grand scheme of things. It's only natural that we should question it before we jump in head first.

I think that many free traders, including myself, feel that opposition to free trade is driven by people committed to the welfare state and the socialist agenda, and realize that both will take a heavy pounding in a free trade world. For these people, the only option seems to be to have an all-encompassing global welfare or socialist state, where no country has the right to economic freedom.

But in answer to your assertion that labor laws are necessary to give a employee a "voice." I would have to disagree. Just as there are many employees in society, there are also many employers. When you apply for a job, you don't just apply to one job; you apply to several, and choose the best option. That is your voice in the labor market. Collective bargaining in the labor market gives employees increased wages, but this usually only causes the added costs to be passed on to the end consumer, and slower real economic growth. Profit margins don't decrease (in fact they may increase, because the industry now has a significant barrier to entry). These increases in prices are effectively a sales tax, which hits poor people the hardest.

The added benefit of free trade is not only greater (because economic growth builds on itself) it is much more equitable. In 1983, only 16% of private sector employees in the US were unionized (it has since dropped to 9%). Collective bargaining in the US only benefits a select few.

Because when you are not as efficient as possible, that means you're producing waste.

That depends on the second part of my question, which you ignored:
how do you define efficiency ? And for that matter: waste ?

Of course free trade is a good thing, sillies. So what if thirty million people have lost their jobs because of increased competition from abroad. Almost all of them have gotten new jobs since then. Some have even gotten higher paying jobs, while at the same time, the decreases in the cost of labor have been passed on to the consumer, making stuff cheaper.

You are still arguing from the misconception that every country on this planet had a primarily capitalist and market based economy. Comparisons of income are completely and utterly meaningless without the social context.

1. Globalisation
I am always astounded that so many lefties seem to be against globalisation, while so many righties are for it, unquestioningly. But in reality, that is the force that is destroying the nationstate, that is destroying the rich upper classes, that is allowing the people of poor countries to succeed in life, on an individual level.
Sadly, globalisation is of course not without its flaws, and these flaws are quite obvious at the moment in all the distortions that people have such problems with.

But on everyone's personal level...how can globalisation be bad?
The world is your oyster! If you want, you can work in the US, or in Canada, or in Britain, or in Togo. You can see the world, talk to it, experience it. Hell, what else is the internet but a symptom of globalisation?

2. Free Trade vs Fair Trade
At the moment, we have neither. Everyone would probably agree.

Free Trade on a global scale is somewhat of a spurious idea, considering that usually when we say that word, we talk about countries, which never make real decisions as a free individual would.
But real free trade would simply be that every individual or organisation on the planet could do business with every other individual or organisation on the planet.
If that was so, we would have free trade. And it wouldn't really have any ideological connotations to it. If you wanted to and could, you could trade with anyone else on the planet. How that is a bad thing, I don't think I can understand.

"Fair Trade" is even less clearly defined.
It is true that there is a lot of unfairness around at the moment. But that is mainly because the rich are unfairly protecting their markets while forcing the poor to open theirs.
Real free trade would be fair in the sense that everyone who enters a deal does so because he, she or it believes that it is good for them.
Obviously there will be power differences or information asymmetry. Such is life.
But how can we tell objectively what is fair and what isn't?

If a multinational corporation goes and buys a native's plants for ten dollars and then resells it for billions...who are we to criticise the corporation for having done the research, for having worked to be in the position to make such a deal? What is the "just" reward for the effort a rich person spent on becoming and staying rich?

3. Free Trade and Globalisation have increased poverty.
That's ridiculous. It really, really is.

Look at the data. This article will tell you everything you want to know, and more.
http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/downloads/integration.pdf

The statistics are clear: Growth is greater with trade liberalisation. Indeed, GDP per capita is greater with trade liberalisation as well.

And as for economic performance in Africa...
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/
There you can see which countries are rated as having good and effective governance, and which don't. And alas, you see that this is absolutely correlated with economic performance, and thus negatively related to poverty.
Africa simply had horrid governments. The Asian Tigers didn't, and that's why countries like South Korea, which started in the 1950s with smaller GDP per capita than countries like Ghana are now doing well, and Ghana doesn't.

You are still arguing from the misconception that every country on this planet had a primarily capitalist and market based economy. Comparisons of income are completely and utterly meaningless without the social context.
This "Heritage Foundation" study tells you the level of economic freedoms in countries worldwide.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
Nevermind any bias in the report, you just tell me which countries you'd rather live in - Bahrain, or Yemen?
Those two should have pretty similar "social contexts", so you should be pretty clear on which you'd prefer.
How about Botswana and Angola?

So, the problem is that things are so good that there aren't enough people to do the work? I'm saying that things are good in China. Things are worse off in Bangladesh and all of the other countries where people were victims of capital flight.

Some factories will move to other nations (and start the whole process over again there), but I highly doubt all of them would go. Plus, the increased industrialization and technological growth can only benefit the Chinese in the long run. (Unless you're an anti-industry, peak-oil type.)Pretty much every country that has industrialized has done so behind a wall of protectionism. Free trade doesn't seem to be compatible with industrialization.

So, the end result, to me, would be that China has largely benefitted from free trade. The west has lower pricing I suppose, and a lot more low paying service sector jobs.It's a tradeoff. Yes, the workers have jobs, but the state system of health insurance has been undermined, so some people don't have health insurance anymore.

But I think as technology and industrialization advances, it will take less and less people to produce the goods we're consuming, and most of us will be in low paying service-based jobs, with lots of low priced goods to choose from.This is probably true, and highly disturbing.

Psst... that's not free trade you're talking about.

And in any case, as you're a socialist pinko commie scum, it's highly unlikely you have a sane concept of what is fair and what isn't.I'm aware that what is being practiced doesn't fit the definition of free trade, which is why I specified "free trade as it's currently practiced." The definition of free trade is impossible to sustain in reality.

As far as being "socialist pinko commie scum", it is precisely because I am that that I know what fair is.

That's ridiculous. It really, really is.

Look at the data. This article will tell you everything you want to know, and more.
http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/do...ntegration.pdf

The statistics are clear: Growth is greater with trade liberalisation. Indeed, GDP per capita is greater with trade liberalisation as well.The problem with such statistics is that they don't show whether or not the majority of the people living in the country are actually benefitting. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that loans taken out are also calculated in GDP.

The problem with such statistics is that they don't show whether or not the majority of the people living in the country are actually benefitting. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that loans taken out are also calculated in GDP.
Inequality is an issue, obviously.

But even that can ultimately be traced back moreso to government failures than the system itself. Increased economic growth does not lead to greater inequality just on its own. Ireland would be an example, I'd say.

Inequality is an issue, obviously.

But even that can ultimately be traced back moreso to government failures than the system itself. Increased economic growth does not lead to greater inequality just on its own. Ireland would be an example, I'd say.So are you suggesting that the rich should be more heavily taxed?

So are you suggesting that the rich should be more heavily taxed?
Not necessarily, Ireland actually has quite a "neoliberal" tax system (at least compared to many other European countries). It's also relatively simple, which is always a boon.

It's more about creating the sort of opportunities for the poor people in the country to participate in capitalism as more than just providers of hard labour (nobody gets rich by using his hands - it's the mind where it's at). That means infrastructure, lots and lots of education, and a working banking system.

Not necessarily, Ireland actually has quite a "neoliberal" tax system (at least compared to many other European countries). It's also relatively simple, which is always a boon.

It's more about creating the sort of opportunities for the poor people in the country to participate in capitalism as more than just providers of hard labour (nobody gets rich by using his hands - it's the mind where it's at). That means infrastructure, lots and lots of education, and a working banking system.Well, that isn't too nauseating. For how long has Ireland had that tax system? Does Ireland have free secondary education?

Well, that isn't too nauseating. For how long has Ireland had that tax system? Does Ireland have free secondary education?
Well, Ireland specifically - it has to be said that a lot of their success is due to them joining the EU, which meant that they suddenly had access to truly huge sums of government money. Interestingly, it also meant that they were suddenly thrown into ultra-free trade, ie no borders at all.

But the government spent it well and spent it wisely, and so they have been the great success story.

The taxes have been moved to their current level by the government which first came to power in '97.

And yes, their education system works much like any other. I don't know the details, but I suppose you have the choice between public and private schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ireland

And if you really know what you're talking about, you'll know that you can't throw in an article by a researcher for The World Bank, one of the institutions thriving upon poverty, and pretend that it is authorititive and neutral.

And you should read what Joseph Stiglietz, who was the chief economist in the World Bank for years, says about WB, IMF, globalization and poverty... his book "Globalization and its discontents", for example.

Well, Ireland specifically - it has to be said that a lot of their success is due to them joining the EU, which meant that they suddenly had access to truly huge sums of government money. Interestingly, it also meant that they were suddenly thrown into ultra-free trade, ie no borders at all.Is most of their trade done within the EU, or do they send things outside it, also?

But the government spent it well and spent it wisely, and so they have been the great success story.

The taxes have been moved to their current level by the government which first came to power in '97.Ah, good, just checking.

And yes, their education system works much like any other. I don't know the details, but I suppose you have the choice between public and private schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_irelandHow about post-secondary education, college/university?

And you should read what Joseph Stiglietz, who was the chief economist in the World Bank for years, says about WB, IMF, globalization and poverty... his book "Globalization and its discontents", for example.
He's a bit of a champion, isn't he.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200311/stiglitz
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,409710,00.html
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/index.cfm

But seriously, Amartya Sen is my man.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,465796,00.html
http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1998/sen-lecture.html
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/sen/sen.html

Is most of their trade done within the EU, or do they send things outside it, also?
Most is with the rest of the EU, but their biggest single trading partner is the US of course.

How about post-secondary education, college/university?
http://www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/822

Most is with the rest of the EU, but their biggest single trading partner is the US of course.


http://www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/822Oh, that's right, the EU has free college. Well, that's a plus, I wish we had that here.

Far from being bad, I feel it is the only way forward, otherwise we get what? Tribalization, misunderstanding and miscomunication, war, despots lining their own pockets over the advancment of thier peoples. Naaa globalisation is the only way forward.

Free trade and globalization are not the same, at all.

Put your hand out for umm handouts, or work at makeing your life better for you, we all have that choice and the capability to suceed.

That's completly false, and insulting for all the people who suffer in misery, doing their best to be able to just sruvive, while so many ressources are wasted.

Of course free trade is a good thing, sillies. So what if thirty million people have lost their jobs because of increased competition from abroad. Almost all of them have gotten new jobs since then. Some have even gotten higher paying jobs, while at the same time, the decreases in the cost of labor have been passed on to the consumer, making stuff cheaper.

That's why, during the 30 years of neoliberal globalization, the average prices want up (called "inflation") faster than the average wages, in all industrialised countries ? While in poor countries, if a "middle class" appeared, the lower class is much more poor than it used to be.

I have no problem with free trade between two parties with similar labour practices. Free trade with nations that don't live up to certian labour standards are hardly fair to compete with.

The problem is much less in nations with similar labour practices, but even in those, free trade in all domains in disastrous: it gives external investors a vote right on decisions the population of a country could take. If the water, electricity, gas, subway, train, ... networks of a country are controlled by private investors, in a free trade system, this country is no longer a democracy, can no longer have a sovereign population, because the investors have a veto power: this can break the country, by breaking its economy, as soon as the decisions displease them.

And exploitation is relative. China is most definitely benefitting from the trade it's receiving. But democracy? Time will tell...

That's not even true. A middle-class is raising in China, and a minority is becoming very rich. But for the average chinese peasant, the situation nowadays is worse than the one 10 years ago. Poverty and misery are higher in China now.

And even for those middle-class Chinese, it's a short term benefit, the damages done by China to its environement are becoming so high that it'll end up in disaster, for the Chinese as for the world. And at the same time, the need for China to stay attractive means they'll never be able to become a completly developped country: as soon as they'll be too close to it, the capitals will flee away from China to go somewhere else, completly destroying China's economy in the process. And 10 years after, they'll go back in a devastated China, which will then have, once again, very cheap labour.

I am always flabbergasted by the froth at the mouth ignorance that is so common among anti-globalization kids.

Only very few people are anti-globalization. I am, personnaly, a fervent internationalist, standing up for the Commune ideal of the "Universal Republic". Most of us who oppose free trade and neoliberal globalization want another form of globalization, putting people and not profits as the goal.

Why not actually learn something about economics before you spout off meaningless drivel? When you can’t think past meaningless slogans, you should keep your mouth shut.

It's perfectly sure that someone like Joseph Stieglitz, who opposes neoliberal globalization, doesn't know anything about economy. That's why he was the chief economist in the world bank, and why he earnt a Nobel Prize in economy.

I laugh at the whole ‘fair trade’ concept. What constitutes fair?

At the very minimum, when you can live decently from your work.

Free trade means you can enter into any deal you want. If you don’t think it’s fair – don’t do it. You have that choice.

Of course, you don't have a choice. Think a bit. You're a peasant in Africa. You've a field of coffee. You've harvested your coffee for the year. You MUST sell it. If you don't sell it, you die. So you'll sell it, at any price. It's that or death. When you are a big coffee company, you can refuse to buy from a peasant. You don't care. At worse, you'll have less to sell, so you'll lost a tiny bit of profit.

A trade is, like any other contract, the result of a strength contest. And since one side is much, much stronger, and the other has much, much more to lose, it's inherently unfair.

There is only few difference between "you sign this deal or I blow your head with a gun" and "you sign this deal or you'll starve to death".

Fairness in trade is only possible if the terms of the trade are strictly controlled by an external entity, ensuring that the more powerful won't abuse from their position.

Pointing out that some people benefit more than others just shows that you are one of those mean little selfish people who would rather drag everyone down into the mud rather than see one person getting slightly more than you do. So what if some people make an extra 10% while others get an extra 50%? Everyone is better off. Why should we cut everyone’s standard of living so that you can feel that everything is ‘fair’ and nobody gets a penny more than you do?

You are doing two stupid mistakes at once.

The first is by saying it's better for everyone. The results of 30 years of neoliberal globalization are the exact opposite: a huge number of people have WORSE lives than before.

The second is by completly exagerating our positions. We don't ask everyone to have exactly the same to the latest cent. We ask everyone to have fair wages for their work. We ask everyone to be able to live decently. We say it's not acceptable that some people earn in one day what others won't earn in their life of work.

The reason why there is a ‘natural’ level of unemployment is not because evil capitalists structure the economy so that there are always more people than jobs; it is because people change jobs.

Even neoliberal economists admit that you are wrong on that. It's the NAIRU theory, I already explained it before. NAIRU is not from marxists or "socialists", but from neoliberal economists, from the most fervous advocates of free trade.

Very rarely can someone who is truly looking fail to find a job in a couple months.

That enough shows your complete, total ignorance of the reality of the vast majority of the world.

The freedom to choose for yourself is a great freedom indeed.

There is and can be no freedom in economy, because in economy you are ALWAYS dependant on others.

I suspect that many people who oppose liberal economic systems stem from a fear of life not being entirely certain with everything you're going to do mapped out by the state from cradle to grave. Get over it. Life is uncertain – stop being afraid of it and stop trying to prevent people from living their own lives.

I have absolutely no fear for myself. I've an IQ of 130, I had my computer science engineer diploma 2 years before the average, if I wanted it, I could have a very good wage in nearly all CS companies. But I work for an average wage on a free software company, because, I CARE ABOUT OTHERS. I'm not a selfish bastard, I'm not thinking "me me me me", I'm thinking about my fellow human beings. I don't want ANYONE to suffer from starvation, and I'm disgusted to see all the human disasters created by your liberal economics. I'm sick to see kids dying from food in Africa, while in Europe we burn food overproduction. I'm sick to see people dying from thirst or unclean water while we could grant them all clean water with a tiny fraction of what is wasted in advertising.

The goal is civilisation, since the beginning, is to created certainity and security in an insecure world. Fire was invented to create protection against random predators and diseases. And so on. A cilivised society is a society ensuring the security and well-being of its members. What you are advocating is the law of the jungle, stepping back to the time we were just animals, everyone caring for his own self, and most living in the constant fear of death. What I am advocating is a human, civilised society, allowing everyone to life their own lives without the constant threat of misery, hunger, thirst, disease, ..

Capitalism is a great system because it allows choice.

It gives you an illusion of choice, but it doesn't give you any real choice.

You can choose what brand of soda you like, you're not stuck only drinking Commie-Cola.

What a freat freedom, to have two brands of Cola in the supermarket, when you are drinking unclean water because it's the only thing you can afford.

Are you so much more wise and capable that you know all and can dictate that a mother of 3 on a tight food budget has to pay a lot more? She shouldn’t have the choice?

She should not have to pay for the food to feed her kids.

I think that many free traders, including myself, feel that opposition to free trade is driven by people committed to the welfare state and the socialist agenda, and realize that both will take a heavy pounding in a free trade world. For these people, the only option seems to be to have an all-encompassing global welfare or socialist state, where no country has the right to economic freedom.

But in answer to your assertion that labor laws are necessary to give a employee a "voice." I would have to disagree. Just as there are many employees in society, there are also many employers. When you apply for a job, you don't just apply to one job; you apply to several, and choose the best option. That is your voice in the labor market. Collective bargaining in the labor market gives employees increased wages, but this usually only causes the added costs to be passed on to the end consumer, and slower real economic growth. Profit margins don't decrease (in fact they may increase, because the industry now has a significant barrier to entry). These increases in prices are effectively a sales tax, which hits poor people the hardest.

The added benefit of free trade is not only greater (because economic growth builds on itself) it is much more equitable. In 1983, only 16% of private sector employees in the US were unionized (it has since dropped to 9%). Collective bargaining in the US only benefits a select few.

You're making a couple of assumptions here;

1) That all nations are in the same economic position as the United States

2) That Protectionism is a result of Socialist rejection of Capitalism.

For starters, the Protectionism vs. Free Trade debate is older than Marxism. From a Canadian perspective, we've been debating the merits of free trade with the US since before we were officially 'Canada'. Back then, we called it 'Reciprocity', but the concerns were the same. Back then, as a resource based economy, Canadians were worried about forever becoming 'hewers of wood, and drawers of water'. You don't have to be a socialist if you're a capitalist who owns a lumber company that can't compete with the pricing of foreign lumber. The net result for that capitalist and his employees is job losses, and the way to prevent that is tariffs.

You're also assuming that every nation has a multitude of career options in front of them, and that well, if you can't get one, there's plenty of opportunity. That's just not the case. If you live in a country where the choice is to work for the large foreign company, at the wages that the owners insist upon, or starve, there's not a lot of choice there at all. Not to mention that people in developed countries suddenly have to compete with nations that work for a pittance. It's the same as you losing your job because your employer can pay someone else far below minimum wage.

Labour laws exist so that people don't have to work in unsafe conditions, or aren't forced to work long hours without some form of compensation. So if a developed nation has rules about safety, etc., why shouldn't the same laws apply to the undeveloped nations? What happens is that the foreign firm calls the shots, instead of the people.

Collective bargaining, while not always the best option, depending on your industry, is an effective way for an employee to have a fair negotiating position with his employer, which in the case of unionized business, is usually fairly large.

That's not even true. A middle-class is raising in China, and a minority is becoming very rich. But for the average chinese peasant, the situation nowadays is worse than the one 10 years ago. Poverty and misery are higher in China now.

And even for those middle-class Chinese, it's a short term benefit, the damages done by China to its environement are becoming so high that it'll end up in disaster, for the Chinese as for the world. And at the same time, the need for China to stay attractive means they'll never be able to become a completly developped country: as soon as they'll be too close to it, the capitals will flee away from China to go somewhere else, completly destroying China's economy in the process. And 10 years after, they'll go back in a devastated China, which will then have, once again, very cheap labour.

While I share your concerns with the lack of oversight for international corporations and the effect they have on sovereignty of nations, I think you're being a little alarmist.

Nations like China and India are advancing to the extent that it's only a matter of time before they can cut the west out of the bargaining position. The average chinese peasant's life is worse? From what I understand, it's far, far better. In the liberalised economic zones, industry is booming, and there are labour shortages. In the restricted and regulated agricultural areas, Deng Xiaoping's reforms allowing the collectives to sell excess agricultural goods has benefitted them.

Things in China were hardly rosy prior to economic reform. As far as the environment goes, that's a global problem, and not unique to China or Free Trade.

While in poor countries, if a "middle class" appeared, the lower class is much more poor than it used to be.
Poor countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore or Malaysia?

As far as the environment goes, that's a global problem, and not unique to China or Free Trade.

It is not unique to Chnia nor free trade, but free trade make it impossible to fight it. With a free trade, the countries with the lowest environemental laws will always be more attractive, which will both make more strict in other countries nearly useless and at the same time put a huge pressure on governements to suppress them. It's the same with workers rights, ...

We NEED to be able to control trade, in order to avoid a generalized downward spiral in every rights: environement protection, workers rights, customer protection, ...

Poor countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore or Malaysia?

For South Korea, they practice a very limited form of free trade. The governement play a huge role in their economy, and they have a control of capital flaws, and that's what saved them during the asian crisis of the 90s. If they have had full free trade, the crisis would have kicked them back to a third world country status.

I like Free Trade. Developed countries may suffer a little, but in the end their economies generally stay strong and underdeveloped countries just get an economic boost.