Free Trade Vs. Protectionism

[Rozalia]

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.

 

This again. I said benevolent because you went all in on all the good corporations do while all the while having a very negative view of government. It's supposed to highlight that in your all in style to try to blow me away you went so far up corporation's arse's that they come off as some benevolent entities who have come to help all the little foreign people out of poverty. 

 

Naive is a cheap word, could say the same in regards to yourself and corporations. Meaningless. Well lets see... 1) I actually support mechanising the workforce heavily if we get everyone housed, educated, and given money so they can support themselves. I prefer production to be done "in house" still however. 2) I have no issue with those of the same nationality be they white, black, brown, yellow, red, or sarcoline. What I am against is them keeping their culture and all that multiculturalism guff. 3) I'm not expansionist nor do I support mad wars in some backwater for some nebulous gain (likely for someone else even). Of course being a Nationalist I believe there is land that is ours so in the case of it being taken I'd naturally be angry... however I don't care to be invading all of Europe. 

 

Yeah, hence why I said it's associated with Nazism, I am aware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_(UK) it simply being Nazism isn't quite the case. It's obscure to me so I know very little about them outside the trivia regarding the name. In regards to the name alone... I do like it, I share many views with the left but their internationalism, multiculturalism, and other such guff is just completely ridiculous to me. Make it Nationalist and it'd all be good to me... umm... I've always had an issue identifying myself though with the massive negative connotations the name has it'd be a pain to explain all the time if the chance is even given. I wonder if someone one day will "claim" it back of sorts. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Rozalia

[Kemal Ergenekon]

This again. I said benevolent because you went all in on all the good corporations do while all the while having a very negative view of government. It's supposed to highlight that in your all in style to try to blow me away you went so far up corporation's arse's that they come off as some benevolent entities who have come to help all the little foreign people out of poverty. 

 

Naive is a cheap word, could say the same in regards to yourself and corporations. Meaningless. Well lets see... 1) I actually support mechanising the workforce heavily if we get everyone housed, educated, and given money so they can support themselves. I prefer production to be done "in house" still however. 2) I have no issue with those of the same nationality be they white, black, brown, yellow, red, or sarcoline. What I am against is them keeping their culture and all that multiculturalism guff. 3) I'm not expansionist nor do I support mad wars in some backwater for some nebulous gain (likely for someone else even). Of course being a Nationalist I believe there is land that is ours so in the case of it being taken I'd naturally be angry... however I don't care to be invading all of Europe. 

 

Yeah, hence why I said it's associated with Nazism, I am aware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_(UK) it simply being Nazism isn't quite the case. It's obscure to me so I know very little about them outside the trivia regarding the name. In regards to the name alone... I do like it, I share many views with the left but their internationalism, multiculturalism, and other such guff is just completely ridiculous to me. Make it Nationalist and it'd all be good to me... umm... I've always had an issue identifying myself though with the massive negative connotations the name has it'd be a pain to explain all the time if the chance is even given. I wonder if someone one day will "claim" it back of sorts. 

 

That's the way you have chosen to interpret my statements. I have been assuming that you know at least the basics of Adam Smith's thoughts thus far. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of how self-interest might result in productive efficiency? We call this the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare (under so and so assumptions, any competitive equilibrium is Pareto-efficient.) What I said is that the profit-seeking motives of the corporations and the utility maximization of the workers results in an increase in total surplus, and both parties benefit if free trade is allowed. You should also check out the concept of comparative advantage. See David Ricardo on that.

 

I don't have issues with your (2) and (3). I am not a fan of multiculturalism myself; I think assimilation into a national culture which is completely devoid of ethnicity is desirable. But your support for (1) is extremely interesting. Increased mechanization of task that previously required labor results in increased unemployment and more profits for the rich corporations and capitalists. This is actually some of what has been happening in the US and in the world in general. Being against free trade and pro-mechanization (i.e. not a Luddite) is a conflicting position. I had told you earlier that you could have preferences that chose protectionism over free trade, but those same preferences would be inconsistent with your pro-mechanization stance. What gives?

 

Here, a parable on protectionism:

 

"To better understand economists’ view of trade, let’s continue our parable. Suppose that the country of Isoland ignores the advice of its economics team and decides not to allow free trade in steel. The country remains in the equilibrium without international trade.

 

Then, one day, some Isolandian inventor discovers a new way to make steel at very low cost. The process is quite mysterious, however, and the inventor insists on keeping it a secret. What is odd is that the inventor doesn’t need any workers or iron ore to make steel. The only input he requires is wheat.

 

The inventor is hailed as a genius. Because steel is used in so many products, the invention lowers the cost of many goods and allows all Isolandians to enjoy a higher standard of living. Workers who had previously produced steel do suffer when their factories close, but eventually they find work in other industries. Some become farmers and grow the wheat that the inventor turns into steel. Others enter new industries that emerge as a result of higher Isolandian living standards. Everyone understands that the displacement of these workers is an inevitable part of progress.

 

After several years, a newspaper reporter decides to investigate this mysterious new steel process. She sneaks into the inventor’s factory and learns that the inventor is a fraud. The inventor has not been making steel at all. Instead, he hasbeen smuggling wheat abroad in exchange for steel from other countries. The only thing that the inventor had discovered was the gains from international trade.

 

When the truth is revealed, the government shuts down the inventor’s operation. The price of steel rises, and workers return to jobs in steel factories. Living standards in Isoland fall back to their former levels. The inventor is jailed and held up to public ridicule. After all, he was no inventor. He was just an economist."

[Rozalia]

 

That's the way you have chosen to interpret my statements. I have been assuming that you know at least the basics of Adam Smith's thoughts thus far. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of how self-interest might result in productive efficiency? We call this the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare (under so and so assumptions, any competitive equilibrium is Pareto-efficient.) What I said is that the profit-seeking motives of the corporations and the utility maximization of the workers results in an increase in total surplus, and both parties benefit if free trade is allowed. You should also check out the concept of comparative advantage. See David Ricardo on that.

 

I don't have issues with your (2) and (3). I am not a fan of multiculturalism myself; I think assimilation into a national culture which is completely devoid of ethnicity is desirable. But your support for (1) is extremely interesting. Increased mechanization of task that previously required labor results in increased unemployment and more profits for the rich corporations and capitalists. This is actually some of what has been happening in the US and in the world in general. Being against free trade and pro-mechanization (i.e. not a Luddite) is a conflicting position. I had told you earlier that you could have preferences that chose protectionism over free trade, but those same preferences would be inconsistent with your pro-mechanization stance. What gives?

 

Here, a parable on protectionism:

 

"To better understand economists’ view of trade, let’s continue our parable. Suppose that the country of Isoland ignores the advice of its economics team and decides not to allow free trade in steel. The country remains in the equilibrium without international trade.

 

Then, one day, some Isolandian inventor discovers a new way to make steel at very low cost. The process is quite mysterious, however, and the inventor insists on keeping it a secret. What is odd is that the inventor doesn’t need any workers or iron ore to make steel. The only input he requires is wheat.

 

The inventor is hailed as a genius. Because steel is used in so many products, the invention lowers the cost of many goods and allows all Isolandians to enjoy a higher standard of living. Workers who had previously produced steel do suffer when their factories close, but eventually they find work in other industries. Some become farmers and grow the wheat that the inventor turns into steel. Others enter new industries that emerge as a result of higher Isolandian living standards. Everyone understands that the displacement of these workers is an inevitable part of progress.

 

After several years, a newspaper reporter decides to investigate this mysterious new steel process. She sneaks into the inventor’s factory and learns that the inventor is a fraud. The inventor has not been making steel at all. Instead, he hasbeen smuggling wheat abroad in exchange for steel from other countries. The only thing that the inventor had discovered was the gains from international trade.

 

When the truth is revealed, the government shuts down the inventor’s operation. The price of steel rises, and workers return to jobs in steel factories. Living standards in Isoland fall back to their former levels. The inventor is jailed and held up to public ridicule. After all, he was no inventor. He was just an economist."

 

There is no need to go into that. I was in the moment and was seeing things as I was. I'm not seeing it from nothing obviously, but going back and forth on such a thing is meaningless so I'm not going to do so. I've explained why I said it, if you feel that it's basis is incorrect then very well. 

 

I'm glad we can agree on those points. Nationalism based on race is destructive and makes enemies of fellow countrymen who should be united in the cause, but aren't because they're scorned for a minor matter like what their skin colour is.

 

I'm not a standard person by any means I am aware. If people learn of my nationalism first they become shocked by my social stances and some of my economic stances. If they learn some of my economic and social policies they become shocked when they hear my nationalism. 

 

In regards to mechanization... well one ideal I've had as a cornerstone in my beliefs is that all citizens (foreigners aren't included obviously) should receive money to live on, have housing, and the necessities should be provided at reasonable prices. I don't believe the relevant parts needed for this being privatised can work however so nationalisations would have to occur (I would say out of necessity). 

With jobs no longer being a necessity to live, but a plus you do to increase your standing, possessions, so on it means losing many jobs to machines (as long as they're based in the country obviously) is not I feel a concern. For businesses them making more money via mechanisation is fine, just need them in country of course, additionally if a foreign business wants to avoid tariffs for example moving over some factories I'd say would do good in getting those tariffs eliminated. I am however totally against them buying up anything in the country obviously. 

 

It'd mean a great many job losses which in the current paradigm is a very bad thing, but if you change the paradigm so it isn't as big an issue than it should be perfectly fine. Of course the issue then switches to what opportunities if they wish to have them you can give the jobless. The arts can plug some holes there I think if the government supports them though that ain't for everybody obviously. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Rozalia

[Kemal Ergenekon]

There is no need to go into that. I was in the moment and was seeing things as I was. I'm not seeing it from nothing obviously, but going back and forth on such a thing is meaningless so I'm not going to do so. I've explained why I said it, if you feel that it's basis is incorrect then very well. 

 

I'm glad we can agree on those points. Nationalism based on race is destructive and makes enemies of fellow countrymen who should be united in the cause, but aren't because they're scorned for a minor matter like what their skin colour is.

 

I'm not a standard person by any means I am aware. If people learn of my nationalism first they become shocked by my social stances and some of my economic stances. If they learn some of my economic and social policies they become shocked when they hear my nationalism. 

 

In regards to mechanization... well one ideal I've had as a cornerstone in my beliefs is that all citizens (foreigners aren't included obviously) should receive money to live on, have housing, and the necessities should be provided at reasonable prices. I don't believe the relevant parts needed for this being privatised can work however so nationalisations would have to occur (I would say out of necessity). 

With jobs no longer being a necessity to live, but a plus you do to increase your standing, possessions, so on it means losing many jobs to machines (as long as they're based in the country obviously) is not I feel a concern. For businesses them making more money via mechanisation is fine, just need them in country of course, additionally if a foreign business wants to avoid tariffs for example moving over some factories I'd say would do good in getting those tariffs eliminated. I am however totally against them buying up anything in the country obviously. 

 

It'd mean a great many job losses which in the current paradigm is a very bad thing, but if you change the paradigm so it isn't as big an issue than it should be perfectly fine. Of course the issue then switches to what opportunities if they wish to have them you can give the jobless. The arts can plug some holes there I think if the government supports them though that ain't for everybody obviously. 

 

I will focus on the mechanization part:

 

You mention that you would be OK with mechanization causing unemployment, because in your hypothetical world citizens "receive money to live on, have housing, and the necessities should be provided at reasonable prices," which you will finance through "nationalization." We're cool this far; sounds reasonable.

 

What I don't understand is why you would be against free trade under the same circumstances? We know for a fact that free trade increases total surplus of a country. Previously you were against this because the surplus was not equally shared across all individuals in the country. Then why would you be against free trade in a hypothetical world where citizens "receive money to live on, have housing, and the necessities should be provided at reasonable prices," which is financed through "nationalization?"

 

After all, as the parable I provided shows, free trade is not much different from mechanization, in that it increase the total surplus in the economy by improving the transformation function between resources available, thanks to comparative advantage.

[Rozalia]

I will focus on the mechanization part:

 

You mention that you would be OK with mechanization causing unemployment, because in your hypothetical world citizens "receive money to live on, have housing, and the necessities should be provided at reasonable prices," which you will finance through "nationalization." We're cool this far; sounds reasonable.

 

What I don't understand is why you would be against free trade under the same circumstances? We know for a fact that free trade increases total surplus of a country. Previously you were against this because the surplus was not equally shared across all individuals in the country. Then why would you be against free trade in a hypothetical world where citizens "receive money to live on, have housing, and the necessities should be provided at reasonable prices," which is financed through "nationalization?"

 

After all, as the parable I provided shows, free trade is not much different from mechanization, in that it increase the total surplus in the economy by improving the transformation function between resources available, thanks to comparative advantage.

 

Well as it was said, foreign labour may well be cheaper for a period of time so you got to combat that for that period. Mechanization also should be done in the country not elsewhere obviously. Foreign companies cannot be allowed to come over and just buy everything so you got to block that. If the company creates their goods in country then all well and good, if they produce them outside with foreign labour and such then you slap some tariffs on them. I support protectionism where needed, that taxes should be paid in the country and not in some tax haven, and so on. I'm not a zealot on the matter and my going against free trade is against it's current incarnation, but if you change the paradigm as I put it then it becomes more tolerable though obviously it has to be done in a manner that the corporations do not have any real influence.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Well as it was said, foreign labour may well be cheaper for a period of time so you got to combat that for that period. Mechanization also should be done in the country not elsewhere obviously. Foreign companies cannot be allowed to come over and just buy everything so you got to block that. If the company creates their goods in country then all well and good, if they produce them outside with foreign labour and such then you slap some tariffs on them. I support protectionism where needed, that taxes should be paid in the country and not in some tax haven, and so on. I'm not a zealot on the matter and my going against free trade is against it's current incarnation, but if you change the paradigm as I put it then it becomes more tolerable though obviously it has to be done in a manner that the corporations do not have any real influence.

 

I don't understand. We agree that with your redistributional fixes, mechanization and free trade lead to the same conclusions, correct? So then you are not against free trade per se, but just concerned about its redistributional effects. Therefore, if given the chance, (1) you should support redistribution, and (2) support free trade over protectionism if these redistributional concerns are addressed.

[Rozalia]

I don't understand. We agree that with your redistributional fixes, mechanization and free trade lead to the same conclusions, correct? So then you are not against free trade per se, but just concerned about its redistributional effects. Therefore, if given the chance, (1) you should support redistribution, and (2) support free trade over protectionism if these redistributional concerns are addressed.

 

It's not a matter of being 100% on one end or the other. If the matter of redistribution is addressed then naturally I'm more open to free trade as I'd feel it doesn't negatively effect the citizenry as much as it used to , however like I said I don't want foreign companies buying up local ones, nor would I want factories going overseas and such. The whole talked about "suing governments" or overruling government regulations from the trade deals and such are big no nos too obviously, as are open borders, and so forth. Those are some protections right there.

 

Anyway I don't feel I've been inconsistent here as I've been arguing based on the current paradigm. One that has to me been responsible for a weakening of governments (which need to be strong to bring about what I'd want) so it leaves me at odds with it. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Rozalia

[Beatrix]

I think every economic policy is pretty toxic on its own, and it needs to take into account many variables and thus mix many different policies and ideas.