[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'A')ll these proposals with no economic understanding at all. Its been nearly two centuries since Ricardo wrote on comparative advantage and people still dont understand.

[threadbear]

Confessions of an economic hitman--Read it, or stfu, Jaws. Sorry, but I'm really tired of hearing neo-liberals beat a dead horse. The free trade mantra chanted over and over may bliss you out and validate your pitiful existence, but it's highly agitating to people who have taken the time to read from a broader spectrum of opinion. Again, my apologies, but I have to get this off my chest--your posts are driving me out of my mind. You waste entirely too many calories formulating weak defences for your hairbrained philosophy.

[Dezakin]

National governments engaging in poor economic policy by taking on loans they cannot repay has little to do with the idea that trade is good overal. In general the John Perkens yarn has to do with countries that have little that the developed world wants in terms of labor but much in terms of natural resources, and that is often corrupting.

But the notion that throwing up protectionist barriers in some sort of way enriches the developing countries of the world is also a complete nonstarter.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'N')ational governments engaging in poor economic policy by taking on loans they cannot repay has little to do with the idea that trade is good overal. In general the John Perkens yarn has to do with countries that have little that the developed world wants in terms of labor but much in terms of natural resources, and that is often corrupting.

But the notion that throwing up protectionist barriers in some sort of way enriches the developing countries of the world is also a complete nonstarter.

[jaws]

Confessions of an economic hitman has a self-evident thesis: the US government steals. You don't say. What else is new?

It's irrelevant to the issue of free trade.

[fathead]

..and theres no real point to discussing free trade if its divorced from the social and political contexts in which in takes place.

The fact of the matter is that whilst neoclassical economics can construct an abstracted theoretical model in which free trade is a beaut maximiser of efficency and driver of economic development, such an abstraction is nigh on irrelevent in a world of monopolistic competetion and government intervention. Despite all the attempts of neoliberalism, both these two factors will remain and void any general equilibrium models of economies.

[jaws]

Equilibrium doesn't enter into it at all. The social-political implications are very simple. On one side the poor have to put up with their governments trying to rob them, and on the other side the U.S. government is trying to rob them too. The 'fair trade' crowd completely excuses the former because of their hatred of the latter. Well the result of that position is that the poor stay poor.

Why couldn't the poor create a business relationship with whomever is most valuable to them, regardless of national boundaries? That's free trade in its essence.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')onfessions of an economic hitman has a self-evident thesis: the US government steals. You don't say. What else is new?

It's irrelevant to the issue of free trade.

[threadbear]

Jaws, Here's a question for you--a logical paradox. If the beauty of the commerical sector is it's exposure to competition, who is going to impose the regulations that maintain that competetive model? Huh? Does the govt. not play a role in ensuring that corporations compete?

If the govt doesn't enforce these laws and regulation, you have the polar opposite of what you propose, occuring. You have a lack of competetion, a tendency towards oligopoly (soon to become monopolistic control, as the economy decays), due to LACK of govt. intervention.


How does the laisse faire govt. non-intervention model, that you support maintain competition? If you can't answer that and decline to acknowledge that govt has to play a role, even in a "free market" you don't have a leg to stand on.

If you are suggesting this is a model that should be exported to the rest of the world, via market liberalization, I'd love to know what kind of convoluted logic you are using. Arguing your point is one thing but never conceding that your free market philosophy contains logical fallacies is more like religion than anything else. Perhaps we should just sum it all up by saying, "The free market works in mysterious ways", and leave it at that?

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'Y')ou frame it as a govt bad, private interests good, Jaws? There again, you fail to understand that the two are joined at the hip, Siamese twins. In fact, the bad guys in "Hitman" are private and public corporations, for the most part, but of course the govt is always in the background ennabling when it should be dissabling.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')ompetition does not need to be enforced. It is the natural state of liberty. A free society is a competitive society. The government's role is limited to protecting individual rights with complete equality.

[Free]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')ompetition does not need to be enforced. It is the natural state of liberty. A free society is a competitive society. The government's role is limited to protecting individual rights with complete equality.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', ':')D :D

Ok, that is just so way out there you've lost some credibility. Take off your rose tinted glasses and read some more about the robber baron era.

Standard Oil ring a bell?

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'W')hat are individual rights? Is it an individual right to be protected from the outcome of a competition that leaves the individual starving or under other existential threats?

With this kind of competition, shouldn't unions feel free to compete for money, i.e. going into strike to get more money? I know you see this as "blackmailing"...

But what if you would define union just as a company which is selling it's workforce? Liberty for all, if any...
(And don't tell me pacta sunt servanda, because that would be a cheap shot...)

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'T')he idea of perfect competition advanced by the pro-government crowd is a mathematical myth. It exists only in infinity. In reality what creates competition is the liberty of the buyer to refuse. The seller must always offer a deal that is competitive.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'Y')ou've got an interesting definition of competition there. But just because people have the freedom to not buy doesn't mean somebody doesn't have a monopoly. Somehow you feel monopolies are not so bad as long as poeple have the right not to buy the service?

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', ':')D :D

Ok, that is just so way out there you've lost some credibility. Take off your rose tinted glasses and read some more about the robber baron era.

Standard Oil ring a bell?

[threadbear]

Wal Mart is NOT a monopoly, Jaws. It's considered part of an oligopoly, including Target. The two are competing, at this point in time. It's important to understand the distinction. In a growth economy, corporations struggling for market share, compete viciously and we are all richer in salad shooters and ipods, as a result. However when the economy stalls, if regulators aren't on top of them these guys will merge, or collude, drive prices up, ignore market share and concentrate on the top 10% of the public that has plenty of disposable income.

[jaws]

You can pretend that Standard Oil had pricing power, the reality is that they didn't use it. In fact they used low prices to drive out competitors.

The entire argument against monopolies resides in their ability to command abnormally high prices. There is no case against Standard Oil.

[threadbear]

Jaws, Please read before replying.


"Standard's monopolistic actions and secret transport deals helped its kerosene to drop in price from 58 to 26 cents between 1865 and 1870."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil



"In one of the most infamous examples of Standard's monopolistic practices, a rival oil association decided to build an oil pipeline, hoping to overcome the virtual boycott imposed on Standard's competitors. In response, the railroad company (at Rockerfeller's direction) denied the consortium permission to run the pipeline across railway land, forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and then pump the oil manually back into the pipeline on the other side. When he learned of this tactic, Rockerfeller then instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing the line. Actual photographs of this incident are included in the PBS TV adaptation of Daniel Yergin's awqard-winning history of the oil industry, The Prize"

Same link as above.