Free trade?

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

Free trade is great, it reduces production costs, increases economic out-put, reduces racism, reduces the likelihood of war and improves the efficiency of the global economy.

Please sir, can we have some more?

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Free trade is great, it reduces production costs, increases economic out-put, reduces racism, reduces the likelihood of war and improves the efficiency of the global economy.

Please sir, can we have some more?

Indeed. I didn't want to mention David Ricardo to the poster who made those comments and no doubt I would have brought on a fit of apoplexy had I mentioned what Smith or Mises had to say on the matter...
almost ALL economists for that matter. 

cookiemonster wrote:

Indeed. I didn't want to mention David Ricardo to the poster who made those comments and no doubt I would have brought on a fit of apoplexy had I mentioned what Smith or Mises had to say on the matter...
almost ALL economists for that matter. 

Yeah, best not mention a centuries-old corpus of economic thought and debate which endorses a movement towards freer markets, liberalisation and globalisation.

I love globalisation, the fact that supply chains can be so effectively spread, excess demand can be so easily dissipated and that idle capital funds can so easily be activated in a globalised world is great.

I used to have a "I *heart* Gloablisation" t-shirt. One of my college lecturers saw it and bought it for me.

But them my hippy cousin saw it, took unbrage and then took it.

Actually I think it was "Globalization" which the T-shirt suggested I love.

cookiemonster wrote:

But them my hippy cousin saw it, took unbrage and then took it.

What did they do with it/ Turn it into some icky hippy tie-die shirt without any profit motive in sight?

Quote :

Actually I think it was "Globalization" which the T-shirt suggested I love.

Yeah, that's it, though I hardly need mention that it is mis-spelled. The US is under the misapprehension that a z is used in that context. Bless them, for they know not what they do.

And look at all the trouble protectionist policies brought them, I think it's still a form of rebellion.

cookiemonster wrote:

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

Free Trade is like Communism - sounds great in theory - but nobody has found a way to put the theory into practice and nobody wants to put it into practice.

cookiemonster wrote:

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

I think its great too. Trade was, is, and always will be the primary engine of human sustainability.

In addition to free trade we also need to work towards free movement of persons and the dilution of nationalism in all its forms (except the World Cup).

Edo wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

Free Trade is like Communism - sounds great in theory - but nobody has found a way to put the theory into practice and nobody wants to put it into practice.

Slowly, carefully and in consultation with all parties involved.

seinfeld wrote:

(except the World Cup).

I dunno, the chaos would be fun to watch.

cookiemonster wrote:

Edo wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

Free Trade is like Communism - sounds great in theory - but nobody has found a way to put the theory into practice and nobody wants to put it into practice.

Slowly, carefully and in consultation with all parties involved.

Exactly, free trade benefits all of us.

cookiemonster wrote:

Edo wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

Free Trade is like Communism - sounds great in theory - but nobody has found a way to put the theory into practice and nobody wants to put it into practice.

Slowly, carefully and in consultation with all parties involved.

Define Free Trade:

Edo wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Edo wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

Free Trade is like Communism - sounds great in theory - but nobody has found a way to put the theory into practice and nobody wants to put it into practice.

Slowly, carefully and in consultation with all parties involved.

Define Free Trade:

The absence of tariff and non-tariff barriers between nation states in relation to the movement of goods, services, capital and people.

Free Trade: absence of monetary tariffs on imported goods; no protectionism on a local economy from the rigours of a larger nearby (or distant) market.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Free Trade: absence of monetary tariffs on imported goods; no protectionism on a local economy from the rigours of a larger nearby (or distant) market.

And what a great thing that is, it has been the catalyst for so much growth and dynamism across economies down through the centuries, it allows the factors of production to be effectively employed, it means less wastage in the global economy and it means a higher standard of living for us all. When we trade, we upgrade.

seinfeld wrote:

Edo wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Edo wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Over yonder I was just called a "neo-convervative" for being an advocate of free trade and the abolition of trade barriers.
That, somehow, free trade perpetuates third world poverty.

So what do the good Burghers of Machine Nation think about free trade?

Free Trade is like Communism - sounds great in theory - but nobody has found a way to put the theory into practice and nobody wants to put it into practice.

Slowly, carefully and in consultation with all parties involved.

Define Free Trade:

The absence of tariff and non-tariff barriers between nation states in relation to the movement of goods, services, capital and people.

Good enough - name one nation state or grouping outside the EU that actually makes an attempt to actually practice this - ie there aren't 40000 and growing harmonised tariff codes in the WTO book for nothing.

Free trade I imagine could be abused; there's a monetary tariff sure but money doesn't always reflect quality of produce (services or people). Between two states in Australia you may not take goods because of biological/horticultural risk.

Free trade as a concept could be massively abused by aggressive multinationals whose produce might not be whiter than white and who want to expand endlessly.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Free trade as a concept could be massively abused by aggressive multinationals whose produce might not be whiter than white and who want to expand endlessly.

Ah but then there's anti-trust regulations and the ability of free markets to under-cut monopolistic positions. Look at Microsoft, Intel and Boeing. They used to be very dominant, virtual monopolists in their respective fields and they are all seeing that position being under-mined by Linux/Google, AMD and Airbus respectively.

When do you legislate for quality in your regulations? There's plenty of goods around that are just ok - this could be because of free trade and the abuse of it as a great idea.

But then again there is a discerning market and concerned consumers etc. who try to buy ethical, green or local etc. Education and information are other items that are interesting in this context, no?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Free trade I imagine could be abused; there's a monetary tariff sure but money doesn't always reflect quality of produce (services or people). Between two states in Australia you may not take goods because of biological/horticultural risk.

Free trade as a concept could be massively abused by aggressive multinationals whose produce might not be whiter than white and who want to expand endlessly.

Good man - thats spot on.

To take an example - The French are already preparing for Mandelsons expected deal at the WTO by proposing other barriers to non European agricultural produce entering the EU other than a direct monetary tariff - environmental and health barriers are already being proposed - thus I have no idea what the Irish farmers are getting their knickers in a such a twist about currently.

Also - The China Syndrome - is the promotion of free trade to a totalitarian and utterly corrupt state and resulting flight of employment opportunities and hard currency to such a state really in the best interests of anybody bar the shareholders and executive classes of multinationals who will use this to fatten their margins. there are no workers holidays or workers rights in the communist state of China. I fear China may become the prototype state of the 21st century - The state is responsible for the security of the property and interests of those who can buy it - the rest can go to hell.

So the French are as bad as the Irish for farming protection? Some of the ideals of economic systems are to drive prices down and quality up so as such do not come with political agendas - they are mechanical effects which can be exploited for good or ill.

Who decides when one product is biologically dangerous to another region? The Padraic Walshs of the world? Some of these reasons being proposed are based on information and science and experience and experiment like our treatment of Brazilian beef and rightly so... but it is also open to abuse through scaremongering. How that balance is found between free trade and properly protected trade is the hard bit.

Must read that China Syndrome bit again...

Auditor #9 wrote:

Free trade as a concept could be massively abused by aggressive multinationals whose produce might not be whiter than white and who want to expand endlessly.

Monopolistic activity and unethical behaviour is a threat to every economy, protected or otherwise, and is not necessarily an outcome of free trade.

The primary problems with free trade are structural, in that capital can flow very quickly, whereas Government and society and not equipped to fill the void it leaves behind.

Free trade also undermines strategic economic interest, in that we come to depend to good and services that we could produce ourselves but which we instead choose to import. (e.g. Food).

The irony therefore is that for free trade to succeed, it must be very carefully managed.

seinfeld wrote:

The irony therefore is that for free trade to succeed, it must be very carefully managed.

I think we have to give quote of the week to that one.

seinfeld wrote:

The primary problems with free trade are structural, in that capital can flow very quickly, whereas Government and society and not equipped to fill the void it leaves behind.

This is very important too but surely could be solved by contracts and just the nature of certain projects which would not allow for the right personnel at any particular time ... Still that would vary from industry to industry.

Altogether very thought-provoking discussion lads...