Free Trade Vs. Protectionism

[Rozalia]

Man works in rural china on his family farm. He is the youngest of three brothers and won't inherit the farm when his father dies. He doesn't earn any money but he gets enough food to survive and his mother and sisters make clothes for trade.

 

He hears that a factory has opened nearby manufacturing latex products, gloves etc. He moves into a small room which he shares with two other men in a nearby city and gets a job at the factory. Now he earns a wage, and he sends a little home to his family. His parents save the money and his eldest nephew goes to school. He works there for a while, and then another factory opens, this one produces cheap socks.

 

With competition, the wage for an experienced factory worker goes up. After a little hesitation, the man moves to the new factory and becomes a shift manager. Some time later, he uses the money he saved to buy a small apartment in the city. He meets his partner, a young woman working the night shift at his factory, and they get married.

 

Around a year later they have their child, a son. Due to having two wages, the couple can afford to send their son to school. Rising industrialisation gradually increases both their wages, and they buy a TV, furniture, and a computer.

 

The child grows up with access to these things and to books. Although his parents are both factory workers, they have hopes that he will go further.

 

He graduates from school aged 18 and gets a place at a local technical college. His parents can afford to help pay for his tuition and living costs from their savings. He graduates with a qualification in technical engineering. He is hired by a large multinational phone manufacturer to oversee the installation of new machinery in their factories.

 

Some twenty years later, he and his new wife wave goodbye to their daughter as she boards the plane to study economics in America.

 

 

Or alternatively, they all live on a dirt farm and eat corn and Wear rags.

 

This is a pattern which is repeating itself across the globe on a daily basis.

 

You can't compare wages to what we get paid. You can only compare them to what they would otherwise get paid if those jobs did not exist.

 

Up-skilling is the path to economic growth and corporations are the major driver of probing those sort of opportunities.

 

I've heard the sales pitch a million times yes, doesn't matter to me though I suppose I have to admit here as otherwise people will keep making the assertion I think it's all a pack of lies that some people do benefit and get uplifted, yeah they do, as in all systems even in places like North Korea.

 

I don't want to allow for that job to created to begin with as I've said. I'm sure some other foreign country would pick up the slack though, not like I'm an Internationalist who wants some new world order, in fact I'm very much against Internationalism as I believe things should be fought for at a national level. If the world does go down that road in rejection of the current order then... I'm not going to complain about it certainly.

[Spite]

No economy operates in isolation. You're British - we import 40% of all our food. We'd never have citrus fruit, or a lot of our meat, or anything exotic without foreign trade. Whatever your opinion, the market is global and therefore every economic solution to a problem has to be internationalist.

 

Put simply, when a country reaches certain levels of infrastructure, global reach and population education, it can uplift itself to a higher level of economy. Manufacturing McDonald's toys would be expensive here in the UK because of the cost of labour, which is high because the population is skilled and there are a lot of better jobs available which pay well. It makes much more sense to give those jobs to people where taking a shitty factory job would be a step up.

 

The great thing about growth is it benefits everyone. Yes it benefits rich people more than their workers, but that's capitalism not globalisation per se. Whether it was done on a national or international level it would be exploitative in that sense.

 

I agree that capitalism in it's pure form is a dangerous beast. I don't think protectionism helps that. For example, when a factory in Bangladesh burned down a few years ago, due to shitty regulations about safety, it made world news. Motions were passed in Bangladesh to ensure it didn't happen again. That was because the factory was found to have supplied primark (a British/Irish clothes chain) and this caused international condemnation of primark. If it had been a "local" factory nobody would have given a !@#$ and nothing would have changed.

 

Similarly there are "ethical", or comparatively ethical anyway, multinationals. Think about the Co-op group in the UK, who work with partner organisations globally distinguished because they pay living wages and use profits to build schools etc.

 

Also when you bear in mind that many countries have natural resources but nothing else of value, they rely on a global market to be able to sell what they have to buy what they don't. In short, globalisation does give benefits to everyone, but obviously the person in the strongest position gets the best part of any trade. Hence why the middle east has held the world to ransom for oil for the last fifty years.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Now that we have demolished the "exploitation" argument, let's move onto Rozalia's next theory: Namely, how profits from free trade are used to oppress people at home.

 

You know what I will do? I will give you a great counterexample let you chew on that:

 

We are going back in time, to 1950-1980, to Turkey. During this period, Turkey was following a policy of Import Substitution Industrialization. It was following a protectionist policy, keeping tariffs high and actively helping prop up some Turkish capitalists of their own. The government's policies helped the families Sabanci and Koc (the two largest corporations) produce and sell crappy products to the Turkish people at higher much higher cost than it would have been otherwise, and rake in huge profits. But at least protectionism resulted in higher wages and less political tyranny of the rich, right? Wrong.

 

Firstly, since Turkey was a developing country, it's problem back then was not facing competition from cheap labor countries -- Turkey was a cheap labor country. So protectionism did not increase the wages. Actually, it did the opposite: The government who was allied with the Koc and Sabanci families it helped prop up, and tried to keep the wages actively down. There were two coups in 1971 and 1980, and in both instances leftists who wanted to unionize and go on strikes were murdered, coerced, imprisoned and hanged. The Koc and Sabanci family members were in the same room, colluding with the generals before the coups happened. The anti-left stance of the alliance of the government elite and the rich resulted in unions being busted, and workers being *actually* exploited.

 

All of this happened under protectionism.

 

gg wp

[Spite]

Even with a benevolent government, protectionism means that the real cost of products for ordinary people goes up. In a "total protection" environment, this means that the cost of raw materials like grain goes up. This happened in Britain in the 19th century (the bread riots). You can read about the background here- it's quite interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws

 

It basically !@#$ed the working class by massively hiking the cost of a staple domestic product (bread and flour) to protect British farmers (i.e. the nobility). Pressure to gain more domestic supply led to extensive enclosure in Ireland, which actually contributed to the potato famine.

[Rozalia]

No economy operates in isolation. You're British - we import 40% of all our food. We'd never have citrus fruit, or a lot of our meat, or anything exotic without foreign trade. Whatever your opinion, the market is global and therefore every economic solution to a problem has to be internationalist.

 

Put simply, when a country reaches certain levels of infrastructure, global reach and population education, it can uplift itself to a higher level of economy. Manufacturing McDonald's toys would be expensive here in the UK because of the cost of labour, which is high because the population is skilled and there are a lot of better jobs available which pay well. It makes much more sense to give those jobs to people where taking a shitty factory job would be a step up.

 

The great thing about growth is it benefits everyone. Yes it benefits rich people more than their workers, but that's capitalism not globalisation per se. Whether it was done on a national or international level it would be exploitative in that sense.

 

I agree that capitalism in it's pure form is a dangerous beast. I don't think protectionism helps that. For example, when a factory in Bangladesh burned down a few years ago, due to shitty regulations about safety, it made world news. Motions were passed in Bangladesh to ensure it didn't happen again. That was because the factory was found to have supplied primark (a British/Irish clothes chain) and this caused international condemnation of primark. If it had been a "local" factory nobody would have given a !@#$ and nothing would have changed.

 

Similarly there are "ethical", or comparatively ethical anyway, multinationals. Think about the Co-op group in the UK, who work with partner organisations globally distinguished because they pay living wages and use profits to build schools etc.

 

Also when you bear in mind that many countries have natural resources but nothing else of value, they rely on a global market to be able to sell what they have to buy what they don't. In short, globalisation does give benefits to everyone, but obviously the person in the strongest position gets the best part of any trade. Hence why the middle east has held the world to ransom for oil for the last fifty years.

 

Technology is always advancing, machines can pick up the slack. 

 

From what I read the issues in Bangladesh still persists. Like with all such things people care... for as long as it's a story and then they stop caring. 

 

 

Now that we have demolished the "exploitation" argument, let's move onto Rozalia's next theory: Namely, how profits from free trade are used to oppress people at home.

 

You know what I will do? I will give you a great counterexample let you chew on that:

 

We are going back in time, to 1950-1980, to Turkey. During this period, Turkey was following a policy of Import Substitution Industrialization. It was following a protectionist policy, keeping tariffs high and actively helping prop up some Turkish capitalists of their own. The government's policies helped the families Sabanci and Koc (the two largest corporations) produce and sell crappy products to the Turkish people at higher much higher cost than it would have been otherwise, and rake in huge profits. But at least protectionism resulted in higher wages and less political tyranny of the rich, right? Wrong.

 

Firstly, since Turkey was a developing country, it's problem back then was not facing competition from cheap labor countries -- Turkey was a cheap labor country. So protectionism did not increase the wages. Actually, it did the opposite: The government who was allied with the Koc and Sabanci families it helped prop up, and tried to keep the wages actively down. There were two coups in 1971 and 1980, and in both instances leftists who wanted to unionize and go on strikes were murdered, coerced, imprisoned and hanged. The Koc and Sabanci family members were in the same room, colluding with the generals before the coups happened. The anti-left stance of the alliance of the government elite and the rich resulted in unions being busted, and workers being *actually* exploited.

 

All of this happened under protectionism.

 

gg wp

 

You're done no such thing. I keep giving you my own definition of it which is quite simply they are exploiting a cheaper workforce to under cut the local worker and you keep ignoring it to argue some other meaning.

Though admittedly I let it go too far in that direction so you're going to keep hitting me with it whatever I say now. 

 

I'm not familiar with Turkey and I'm certain there are seismic differences. Just because one corrupt entity failed at something doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a failure. 

 

Even with a benevolent government, protectionism means that the real cost of products for ordinary people goes up. In a "total protection" environment, this means that the cost of raw materials like grain goes up. This happened in Britain in the 19th century (the bread riots). You can read about the background here- it's quite interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws

 

It basically !@#$ed the working class by massively hiking the cost of a staple domestic product (bread and flour) to protect British farmers (i.e. the nobility). Pressure to gain more domestic supply led to extensive enclosure in Ireland, which actually contributed to the potato famine.

 

I'm familiar with the Corn Laws but don't feel it matters because as you've said, it's a different world and not just on a international level. 

[Spite]

You're right, machines can do a lot of jobs. But not as cheaply as foreign labour, so prices still go up. Maybe it isn't bread now, but there are a million other things that it applies to. I got my first toaster for £5 from tesco. I got tshirts for 3 for £15 from Next. These things are possible due to foreign labour. There are times when I would have had to do without pretty basic shit without that cheap stuff that I can get from forig lands. It might not be the level of bread, but without that free trade it wouldn't be possible.

[Rozalia]

You're right, machines can do a lot of jobs. But not as cheaply as foreign labour, so prices still go up. Maybe it isn't bread now, but there are a million other things that it applies to. I got my first toaster for £5 from tesco. I got tshirts for 3 for £15 from Next. These things are possible due to foreign labour. There are times when I would have had to do without pretty basic shit without that cheap stuff that I can get from forig lands. It might not be the level of bread, but without that free trade it wouldn't be possible.

 

Perhaps for now, though I think once the state has made it so companies can safely fully "go in" on mechanization it should see leaps and bounds. Though yes I understand what you're saying on that. You make it so they produce all that stuff "in house", like I said it can be with machines, and are thereby free (due to in house, not because machines) from tariffs. Production costs go up if so but depending on the situation taxes can be reduced or in some cases they can take it, in fact in cases where the large part of the "value" of the item is the brand they could do with being price controlled if anything. 

[Spite]

I think a proportion of the market is always going to be "value" goods compared to "organic" or otherwise fancy pants goods.Fact is cheap stuff is important for most people. I'm sure I could be a fruit picker or a factory worker, but it would be a waste of my time to do that. I'd rather someone else do it.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You know you won an argument when your opponent cannot answer in any meaningful way except cheap (and wrong) one liners. My job is done.

[Rozalia]

You know you won an argument when your opponent cannot answer in any meaningful way except cheap (and wrong) one liners. My job is done.

 

Don't see where I did that with you however it's not my fault you keep going back to the well so my responses naturally get shorter as the repetition wears on. I've defined it for you from my nationalist standpoint, constantly slamming me with an internationalist angle like you're doing doesn't really matter. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Don't see where I did that with you however it's not my fault you keep going back to the well so my responses naturally get shorter as the repetition wears on. I've defined it for you from my nationalist standpoint, constantly slamming me with an internationalist angle like you're doing doesn't really matter. 

 

I challenged you on a fact, not your preferences. You were unable to answer my question; namely how "the enemies of the people" "the rich corporations" can prosper from free trade, but not prosper in a protectionist economy. Actually protectionism makes it easier for the rich given that their monopolies will not be facing any competition from the outside.

[Rozalia]

I challenged you on a fact, not your preferences. You were unable to answer my question; namely how "the enemies of the people" "the rich corporations" can prosper from free trade, but not prosper in a protectionist economy. Actually protectionism makes it easier for the rich given that their monopolies will not be facing any competition from the outside.

 

Oh that? You kept going on about something else to the point that got lost in it all. Well quite simply with protectionism (and lets not forget nationalisation) the state can force businesses to do what they normally would not. In the case of many of the rich they would have their businesses taken from them, though obviously for multinationals it'd be a part of their business. In industries where the government would then hold sole ownership then yes they have a monopoly but naturally I see nothing wrong with that if it's done right. In others where private business would be allowed they'd behave I'm confident after seeing what happened to everybody else, though if they don't there are ways to address that.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Oh that? You kept going on about something else to the point that got lost in it all. Well quite simply with protectionism (and lets not forget nationalisation) the state can force businesses to do what they normally would not. In the case of many of the rich they would have their businesses taken from them, though obviously for multinationals it'd be a part of their business. In industries where the government would then hold sole ownership then yes they have a monopoly but naturally I see nothing wrong with that if it's done right. In others where private business would be allowed they'd behave I'm confident after seeing what happened to everybody else, though if they don't there are ways to address that.

Define "Done Right"

Because corruption is found in every governing system. From the sound of it you desire an Authoritarian Nanny-State to change your diapers.

[Rozalia]

Define "Done Right"

Because corruption is found in every governing system. From the sound of it you desire an Authoritarian Nanny-State to change your diapers.

 

Achieves it's goal and corruption is kept to a minimum so it doesn't all fall apart. If it does then the government obviously has to fix it.

 

I believe we went through this before and like I said I'm very open on personal choice matters, much more than the norm very easily. Economically I think the state should take more action yes. As for authoritarianism I have no issue with it especially as it'd likely take an authoritarian to make it happen and then keep it going. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Oh that? You kept going on about something else to the point that got lost in it all. Well quite simply with protectionism (and lets not forget nationalisation) the state can force businesses to do what they normally would not. In the case of many of the rich they would have their businesses taken from them, though obviously for multinationals it'd be a part of their business. In industries where the government would then hold sole ownership then yes they have a monopoly but naturally I see nothing wrong with that if it's done right. In others where private business would be allowed they'd behave I'm confident after seeing what happened to everybody else, though if they don't there are ways to address that.

 

A state is only as benevolent as those who rule it. You assume the state would seek to improve the welfare of its people after nationalization. That's extremely naive of you. I see no further need to discuss this with you. Maybe when you mature a decade or so.

[Rozalia]

A state is only as benevolent as those who rule it. You assume the state would seek to improve the welfare of its people after nationalization. That's extremely naive of you. I see no further need to discuss this with you. Maybe when you mature a decade or so.

 

There you go again with all government being evil. Of course you've spent a long time trumpeting the glorious benevolence of the corporations so it's not exactly unexpected for you to think that, they get in the way of more corporate benevolence those mean governments. 

 

I thought that was the essence of your posts, what it usually comes down to. Adults sell out to the established orthodoxy, any who disagree with it are children. Careful though, many orthodoxies have come before yours, the ideas rival to their's were childish too until they took over.

 

Edit: Though to address it directly. If people are being screwed on say, energy. The government comes in, nationalizes the lot and improves things for citizens... why would I define this as them not improving things? So your idea is that government would run on the basis of nationalising things (radical process in a lot of places) and then... nationalise it so they can be the ones making large amounts of dosh? While a government can indeed do that, I'm not so pessimistic in the context we'd be talking about.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Rozalia

[Kemal Ergenekon]

There you go again with all government being evil. Of course you've spent a long time trumpeting the glorious benevolence of the corporations so it's not exactly unexpected for you to think that, they get in the way of more corporate benevolence those mean governments. 

 

I thought that was the essence of your posts, what it usually comes down to. Adults sell out to the established orthodoxy, any who disagree with it are children. Careful though, many orthodoxies have come before yours, the ideas rival to their's were childish too until they took over.

 

Edit: Though to address it directly. If people are being screwed on say, energy. The government comes in, nationalizes the lot and improves things for citizens... why would I define this as them not improving things? So your idea is that government would run on the basis of nationalising things (radical process in a lot of places) and then... nationalise it so they can be the ones making large amounts of dosh? While a government can indeed do that, I'm not so pessimistic in the context we'd be talking about.

 

You are lying as usual. I did not ever call the corporations benevolent. They maximize their profits, and nothing else. You called hiring the cheapest possible workers unethical, which I called out as rubbish. In business, you try to buy low and sell high. This is not good, nor evil. It is just a fact. Welcome to the real world.

 

Your naivete would claim that Nazi Germany is a great state. After all, they took the nationalism idea to its extreme. We saw how it ended, so spare me the theatrics about how revolutionary you are please. You are a right-winger, and there is nothing remotely revolutionary on that front beyond one upping previous hypernationalist catastrophes.

 

If the government nationalized an industry in which there was a monopoly, and set prices lower than the monopoly price, it would help things. However nationalization wouldn't help in most cases where companies operate competitively. Also, there is the issue of trust and competence. Since the government would not have the goal of profit maximization, it might start taking actions that lower the actual surplus, like hiring unnecessarily high number of employees, and making sweetheart deals to the pals of the managers. We've been there and seen its consequences. It is a necessity in some industries (like natural monopolies), but hurts much more than it helps most of the time.

[Rozalia]

You are lying as usual. I did not ever call the corporations benevolent. They maximize their profits, and nothing else. You called hiring the cheapest possible workers unethical, which I called out as rubbish. In business, you try to buy low and sell high. This is not good, nor evil. It is just a fact. Welcome to the real world.

 

Your naivete would claim that Nazi Germany is a great state. After all, they took the nationalism idea to its extreme. We saw how it ended, so spare me the theatrics about how revolutionary you are please. You are a right-winger, and there is nothing remotely revolutionary on that front beyond one upping previous hypernationalist catastrophes.

 

If the government nationalized an industry in which there was a monopoly, and set prices lower than the monopoly price, it would help things. However nationalization wouldn't help in most cases where companies operate competitively. Also, there is the issue of trust and competence. Since the government would not have the goal of profit maximization, it might start taking actions that lower the actual surplus, like hiring unnecessarily high number of employees, and making sweetheart deals to the pals of the managers. We've been there and seen its consequences. It is a necessity in some industries (like natural monopolies), but hurts much more than it helps most of the time.

 

You know what I was getting at but ignore it for another "real world" statement. 

 

Nazi comparison, just another part of today's playbook. I'm very far from a Nazi so spare me that please. As for being a right winger I'd disagree based on it with that you seemingly trying to make me out to be some cookie cutter Fascist/Nazi who hates Black/Asian/Jewish people, hates gays, disrespects women, and so on (I assume this what the implication is). I'm very far from such things. I'm also by the way isolationist and have opposed every single war they've pushed, even those ones where we needed to save the poor "moderates" who are "fighting for democracy", so I'm hardly an aggressive sort. 

 

Like I said, I'd not touch the arts for one as not everything needs bringing in line. The issue I take with "competitiveness" is a lot of industries are "competitive" when they are anything but so we'd likely disagree on that end in some areas. As for high number of employees... I would actually prefer a lower amount of employees on a few fronts, replaced by machines. As for sweethearts thats corruption and obvious the state has to have someone checking on such things. 

 

EDIT: Though I'll admit I do get National Democratic Socialist results which is these days associated with Nazism yes.

 

http://politicaltest.net/en/test/result/59155

Edited March 17, 2016 by Rozalia

[Spite]

The problem with nationalisation is that you transfer control to the biggest corporation of them all - the state itself. It is just as dodgy as the others. You think many departments run or regulated by the government don't try to squeeze a profit out? If the government has a bad year and is in deficit, you don't think they'll rob or screw over their companies to pay the difference? If you look at the coal industry in Britain pre-privatisation, corruption and inefficiency was off the scale. That's what gave the tories such an unassailable position in dismantling it.

[Rozalia]

The problem with nationalisation is that you transfer control to the biggest corporation of them all - the state itself. It is just as dodgy as the others. You think many departments run or regulated by the government don't try to squeeze a profit out? If the government has a bad year and is in deficit, you don't think they'll rob or screw over their companies to pay the difference? If you look at the coal industry in Britain pre-privatisation, corruption and inefficiency was off the scale. That's what gave the tories such an unassailable position in dismantling it.

 

I'm aware of the state's position as in essence a corporation, however it's a different type of beast if ran as I believe it should be. If it's just another tool of the corrupt, something that for leaders even seem to want to fail to affirm their own beliefs then it becomes as you say, as dodgy as the others. Now obviously I'm aware many would disagree that which they are free to. I have a different view on the role of the government and feel on the scale of government and corporations more should be weighed to the side of government.

 

Well as I said corruption is a part of life and the best you can do is combat it as best as possible. Additionally in regards to efficiency I'm not a Luddite nor do I feel if the state has provided money and housing to people unions are strictly necessary as the government can handle such matters.

[Spite]

I'm aware of the state's position as in essence a corporation, however it's a different type of beast if ran as I believe it should be. If it's just another tool of the corrupt, something that for leaders even seem to want to fail to affirm their own beliefs then it becomes as you say, as dodgy as the others. Now obviously I'm aware many would disagree that which they are free to. I have a different view on the role of the government and feel on the scale of government and corporations more should be weighed to the side of government.

 

Well as I said corruption is a part of life and the best you can do is combat it as best as possible. Additionally in regards to efficiency I'm not a Luddite nor do I feel if the state has provided money and housing to people unions are strictly necessary as the government can handle such matters.

 

I completely agree that any corporation manned and regulated by benevolent people working for the good of all will produce excellent results for their workers and the consumer, however I think the reality is that would be a fantasy situation. The people who work for the public sector aren't inherently more ethical than any other sector, especially in poorer countries where people have to find ways to supplement their low wages and bribery is rife.

 

I believe the role of the government should be as a regulator. Corporations in competition will, in most cases, improve efficiency and compete to reduce prices to a minimum. In most cases that is a good thing. The government can regulate their competition using tools such as a minimum wage, quality guidelines and so on. A combination of worker and consumer rights laws protects everyone involved and makes sure that competition is genuinely about efficiencies and not about cutting back on quality or wages.

 

There are a few examples where state monopolies are preferential as Kemal said. For example, water suppliers, or large integrated transport networks. Even in these cases competition can be useful- people always said privatising phone companies was silly as there was only one phone network (BT in the UK). But we all know that despite having the same physical connection, there are many options on the market now. Similarly with gas and electricity. I get a much cheaper deal with my current provider than with British Gas, but it is the same physical gas and electricity network. There are lots of factors in that- but let's say it's because my provider doesn't have 24 hour british customer service centres. Some people will want that in their provider and be willing to pay an extra £4 a month (as an example) for that service. Personally I'm not one of those people. But if as a company you have invested in that, you have to pass the cost of that on to the consumer. In a state monopoly therefore that choice would not exist.

 

Sorry for all the wordiness.

[Rozalia]

I completely agree that any corporation manned and regulated by benevolent people working for the good of all will produce excellent results for their workers and the consumer, however I think the reality is that would be a fantasy situation. The people who work for the public sector aren't inherently more ethical than any other sector, especially in poorer countries where people have to find ways to supplement their low wages and bribery is rife.

 

I believe the role of the government should be as a regulator. Corporations in competition will, in most cases, improve efficiency and compete to reduce prices to a minimum. In most cases that is a good thing. The government can regulate their competition using tools such as a minimum wage, quality guidelines and so on. A combination of worker and consumer rights laws protects everyone involved and makes sure that competition is genuinely about efficiencies and not about cutting back on quality or wages.

 

There are a few examples where state monopolies are preferential as Kemal said. For example, water suppliers, or large integrated transport networks. Even in these cases competition can be useful- people always said privatising phone companies was silly as there was only one phone network (BT in the UK). But we all know that despite having the same physical connection, there are many options on the market now. Similarly with gas and electricity. I get a much cheaper deal with my current provider than with British Gas, but it is the same physical gas and electricity network. There are lots of factors in that- but let's say it's because my provider doesn't have 24 hour british customer service centres. Some people will want that in their provider and be willing to pay an extra £4 a month (as an example) for that service. Personally I'm not one of those people. But if as a company you have invested in that, you have to pass the cost of that on to the consumer. In a state monopoly therefore that choice would not exist.

 

Sorry for all the wordiness.

 

Having seen the government as a regulator, and knowing that is the role of governments elsewhere I don't believe it's working (as least not as I'd like). Some would say it's because they aren't regulating enough and if you hit that sweet spot then everything is dandy. I take the other view which is that it is better a swing to the other side of the scale completely. The reason for this is for what I mentioned but also because I feel a gradual and central position is weak, too vulnerable to breaking back down to what it was. Corruption of course being what breaks it down as the corporations are powerful, however if the corporations are weak than it can't happen like that. Just how I see it.

 

Well obviously you want the state service being as fine as you can make it, which obviously can be harder due to a couple of factors however like I said I'm not a Luddite and feel many areas with government backing could perform very well. Some areas could have some private competition obviously (against a state ran business), and foreign goods even if they get more expensive are always going to have a place.

 

It's alright, much better mood now. 

[Spite]

One of the problems is that whilst trade has gone global, the regulations haven't in many cases. But there's a lot of work going on both privately (through the big 4 auditing firms and elsewhere) and publicly (though bodies like the EU) to ensure that this changes.

[Rozalia]

One of the problems is that whilst trade has gone global, the regulations haven't in many cases. But there's a lot of work going on both privately (through the big 4 auditing firms and elsewhere) and publicly (though bodies like the EU) to ensure that this changes.

 

You know I'm against the EU so I don't need to say anything on that end. You referring to TTIP and such I assume?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Rozalia

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You know what I was getting at but ignore it for another "real world" statement. 

 

Nazi comparison, just another part of today's playbook. I'm very far from a Nazi so spare me that please. As for being a right winger I'd disagree based on it with that you seemingly trying to make me out to be some cookie cutter Fascist/Nazi who hates Black/Asian/Jewish people, hates gays, disrespects women, and so on (I assume this what the implication is). I'm very far from such things. I'm also by the way isolationist and have opposed every single war they've pushed, even those ones where we needed to save the poor "moderates" who are "fighting for democracy", so I'm hardly an aggressive sort. 

 

Like I said, I'd not touch the arts for one as not everything needs bringing in line. The issue I take with "competitiveness" is a lot of industries are "competitive" when they are anything but so we'd likely disagree on that end in some areas. As for high number of employees... I would actually prefer a lower amount of employees on a few fronts, replaced by machines. As for sweethearts thats corruption and obvious the state has to have someone checking on such things. 

 

EDIT: Though I'll admit I do get National Democratic Socialist results which is these days associated with Nazism yes.

 

http://politicaltest.net/en/test/result/59155

 

No, I am calling you out on exactly what you falsely asserted. You asserted that I said corporations are benevolent. I said no such thing, and you lied. Corporations maximize profits. They don't give a rat's ass about helping the broader public unless it helps their PR and thus sales.

 

I didn't call you a Nazi. I said your naive world view which sees the government as less prone to corruption than corporations would make you assess Nazi Germany as a successful country. Why, Nazi Germany: (1) reduced unemployment tremendously (2) prosecuted all the minorities in the country and all those pesky immigrants, promoting the rights of the glorious Aryan race (what your protectionist measures seek to do) (3) increased the Lebensraum of the Reich by expanding the land it controlled (who cares about the poor !@#$ who are occupied, they don't belong to our glorious nation) (4) boosted economic activity via increasing government spending (infrastructure and war spending).

 

Nazi stands for National Socialist as you well know, so yeah, that political test result is shooting yourself in the leg, xdxd.