Originally posted by: MadRat
If people are going to have benefits from free trade then we need to remove patent protection and other artificial barriers. We also need to require products coming into each market to be cleared at the border in clearinghouses, eliminating the idea of 'exclusivity agreements'. The idea of a clearinghouse is an auction house for products made in foreign countries. This would eliminate the abuse of certain meglo-corporations that currently use exclusivities to wedge themselves as sole market providers. The only way to have open and free trade is to eliminate the conditions that allow the abuse of these circumstances to destroy one's economy in the first place.
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: MadRat
If people are going to have benefits from free trade then we need to remove patent protection and other artificial barriers. We also need to require products coming into each market to be cleared at the border in clearinghouses, eliminating the idea of 'exclusivity agreements'. The idea of a clearinghouse is an auction house for products made in foreign countries. This would eliminate the abuse of certain meglo-corporations that currently use exclusivities to wedge themselves as sole market providers. The only way to have open and free trade is to eliminate the conditions that allow the abuse of these circumstances to destroy one's economy in the first place.
What does the removal of intellectual property protections have to do with trade?
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: MadRat
If people are going to have benefits from free trade then we need to remove patent protection and other artificial barriers. We also need to require products coming into each market to be cleared at the border in clearinghouses, eliminating the idea of 'exclusivity agreements'. The idea of a clearinghouse is an auction house for products made in foreign countries. This would eliminate the abuse of certain meglo-corporations that currently use exclusivities to wedge themselves as sole market providers. The only way to have open and free trade is to eliminate the conditions that allow the abuse of these circumstances to destroy one's economy in the first place.
What does the removal of intellectual property protections have to do with trade?
Because the big corporate heads that have taken control have changed the game.
Take for example the Blue Jeans Cable Company issue that just came up.
Monster took a plain RCA cable connector and tried to stop another company from producing connectors. It's your boys causing the problems.
Originally posted by: piasabird
There is no such thing as free trade. It only protects foreign trade not US Trade. There is nothing fair about it.
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's simplified on purpose. Premises generally are.
Free trade is good. The reason for this is that generally the individual is more capable in dictating his needs than having them provided for by an external party. Is regulation necessary to some extent? Yes, of course. But it's something that is wisely undertaken in measured steps.
As I said in my post, the success of the west is testament in part to the success of capitalism. I provided for the fact that its successes are attributable also to other sources. But I place much of it at the feet of the wisdom in the general understanding that free trade is good.
I don't care whether any of my statements are damaging the discussion. I only care that I'm making as factual a statement as I know how. Again, no economic system prevents or cures all societal ills. To date, capitalism comes the closest.
I don't see how anyone can argue that capitalism and communism/socialism/or any other economic system to date are two sides of the same coin, except to say that they are polar opposites. One works in human society. The other doesn't. Period.
There's not much point in a detailed response, since you show no interest in the actual issues.
So, suffice it to say to your last summarizing comment, you are claiming that no matter how repressive the situation for most people, with or without any democracy, as long as it's capitalism, it 'works', period for people, and that countries like Sweden which are relatively socialist simply 'don't work for people'.
You are not interested in the facts, the truth, the issue, so why you post, I don't know. But good luck.
If you believe fair trade is bad, and allows other people to be taken advantage of, please go write you state senator and have him raise tariffs on any state that has a lower median wage than you to protect those workers.
If that statement sounds stupid to you, replace state with nation. If you think protectionism is good for our nation, than it should be just as good for your state, or even your city.
Free trade is just trade that is more efficient, without protectionist barriers. And, trade is good, and has been good for every nation that participates. Do you remember when hong kong made our cheap crap? Now they have a much higher standard of living. I am not going to tell you that every nation we trade with is going to immediately become paradise, but can you please name me one nation that over more than 20 years of trading with us, their workers lives have gotten worse instead of better?
I know trade benefitted, south korea, pakistan, hong kong, malaysia, and mexico off the top of my head. If free trade hurts other people, please name a nation where people are worse off after trade than before. We have plenty of examples of nations trading, by this time you should no longer need hypothetical situations, you should have proof.
Free trade is just trade that is more efficient, without protectionist barriers.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Bullshit! We can and should worry about what other countries do. Manufacturing goods for the American market in countries with exploitive working conditions kills American jobs, which is reflected in higher unemployment, in turn reducing tax revenues and raising the costs of dealing with the resulting problems.
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's simplified on purpose. Premises generally are.
Free trade is good. The reason for this is that generally the individual is more capable in dictating his needs than having them provided for by an external party. Is regulation necessary to some extent? Yes, of course. But it's something that is wisely undertaken in measured steps.
As I said in my post, the success of the west is testament in part to the success of capitalism. I provided for the fact that its successes are attributable also to other sources. But I place much of it at the feet of the wisdom in the general understanding that free trade is good.
I don't care whether any of my statements are damaging the discussion. I only care that I'm making as factual a statement as I know how. Again, no economic system prevents or cures all societal ills. To date, capitalism comes the closest.
I don't see how anyone can argue that capitalism and communism/socialism/or any other economic system to date are two sides of the same coin, except to say that they are polar opposites. One works in human society. The other doesn't. Period.
There's not much point in a detailed response, since you show no interest in the actual issues.
So, suffice it to say to your last summarizing comment, you are claiming that no matter how repressive the situation for most people, with or without any democracy, as long as it's capitalism, it 'works', period for people, and that countries like Sweden which are relatively socialist simply 'don't work for people'.
You are not interested in the facts, the truth, the issue, so why you post, I don't know. But good luck.
If you believe fair trade is bad, and allows other people to be taken advantage of, please go write you state senator and have him raise tariffs on any state that has a lower median wage than you to protect those workers.
If that statement sounds stupid to you, replace state with nation. If you think protectionism is good for our nation, than it should be just as good for your state, or even your city.
Free trade is just trade that is more efficient, without protectionist barriers. And, trade is good, and has been good for every nation that participates. Do you remember when hong kong made our cheap crap? Now they have a much higher standard of living. I am not going to tell you that every nation we trade with is going to immediately become paradise, but can you please name me one nation that over more than 20 years of trading with us, their workers lives have gotten worse instead of better?
I know trade benefitted, south korea, pakistan, hong kong, malaysia, and mexico off the top of my head. If free trade hurts other people, please name a nation where people are worse off after trade than before. We have plenty of examples of nations trading, by this time you should no longer need hypothetical situations, you should have proof.
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Harvey
Bullshit! We can and should worry about what other countries do. Manufacturing goods for the American market in countries with exploitive working conditions kills American jobs, which is reflected in higher unemployment, in turn reducing tax revenues and raising the costs of dealing with the resulting problems.
It's funny, I see people arguing this point a lot. In my university's student council election debates several years ago, someone asked the question of the candidates: "I have noticed that the <student run campus clothing store> sells clothes primarily made in Guatemala and Honduras. It is well known that these countries exploit workers in sweat shops to produce their goods and I want to know what you will do about it."
Most of the candidates gave the "safe" answer: "I... uh... didn't know about that. Well I'd encourage that store, and all student owned stores to buy goods made in Canada."
The last candidate was hispanic. Her answer: "I'm from Guatemala. My family still lives there. People here feel bad that their clothes come from my country, and they want to take those jobs away. The fact is, while people work long hours for little pay, it's better than the alternative. If you take those jobs away, some people in my family would have nothing and they would starve. Yes it isn't the greatest situation right now, but the solution isn't to take their jobs away, but to help their economy go forward."
Originally posted by: orangat
Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand (to a lesser extent) are among the ones that come to mind among South east Asian countries which didn't make much progress despite decades of free trade.
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Free trade is bad? That's news to me.
I always hear talk of exploitation, poor environmental standards, poor labor practices and of course the always popular "they took ur jebs!" To be honest some of those do actually have merit, particularly the last one. Yes, there are losers in free trade. Overall the pie is bigger but the distribution of who gets that pie is going to skew toward the higher educated for the US. Free trade for the most part won't cause unemployment, it'll just shuffle around the make up of the job market making the unskilled jobs lower paying and the skilled jobs more attractive. This is actually one thing our government can directly deal with. I know redistribution of wealth via the government is kind of a dirty phrase if you want everyone to be on board with free trade, the losers from free trade are going to have to see at least part of that bigger pie.
Exploitation and poor labor standards is not something we can directly effect. Major labor movements will come forth when the supply of labor stops being nearly perfectly elastic. Wages will rise and with that comes more power to the worker who then can demand better working conditions. Taking away free trade depresses their wages and gives them less power.
The word exploitation is overused, me thinks. While yes, corporations do take advantage of the fact that the people in developing nations are willing to work for ridiculously low wages, there is a reason the people are willing to accept them. These people can get better, more stable pay than subsistence farming where they are likely horribly indebted to the local money lender. The health hazards are similar so the choice is clear for a lot of them.
Now the environment...that is a tough one. The problem with the environment is that maintaining it is more costly (excluding cost externalities). Heck, the US hasn't really been huge on the environment until fairly recently. Maybe instead of raising trade barriers we could possibly provide aid geared toward more environmentally friendly companies. I mean, it's our planet too, right? Considering we're the ones that can afford it the best, shouldn't the western countries be ponying up some cash to clean up developing environments as well?
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Harvey
Bullshit! We can and should worry about what other countries do. Manufacturing goods for the American market in countries with exploitive working conditions kills American jobs, which is reflected in higher unemployment, in turn reducing tax revenues and raising the costs of dealing with the resulting problems.
It's funny, I see people arguing this point a lot. In my university's student council election debates several years ago, someone asked the question of the candidates: "I have noticed that the <student run campus clothing store> sells clothes primarily made in Guatemala and Honduras. It is well known that these countries exploit workers in sweat shops to produce their goods and I want to know what you will do about it."
Most of the candidates gave the "safe" answer: "I... uh... didn't know about that. Well I'd encourage that store, and all student owned stores to buy goods made in Canada."
The last candidate was hispanic. Her answer: "I'm from Guatemala. My family still lives there. People here feel bad that their clothes come from my country, and they want to take those jobs away. The fact is, while people work long hours for little pay, it's better than the alternative. If you take those jobs away, some people in my family would have nothing and they would starve. Yes it isn't the greatest situation right now, but the solution isn't to take their jobs away, but to help their economy go forward."
If the history of the Philippines was only about 5 years old and totally concentrated in Makati city, you might be right. Problem is that Philippines have suffered an unequal relationship incl trade with the US since it was colonized. I'm sure the Philippines is an attractive place to invest in call centers just as the southern states in US, Australia, NZ was for a short while, perhaps India would give Philippines some competition in the race to the bottom.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Although I agree with most everything you said, but this statement is catagorically wrong. The Philippines is the fastest growing country for call centers and financial centers in the world, due to english literacy rates, favorable pricing, and quality of applicants. Viet Nam is a rising star also.Originally posted by: orangat
Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand (to a lesser extent) are among the ones that come to mind among South east Asian countries which didn't make much progress despite decades of free trade.
There's a ton of articles as support, and as for myself, someone who travels to SE Asia a few times/year, I can tell you Makati PI, for example, grows noticable every time I go. It's very high end, and very wealthy.
just FYI.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: silverpig
It's funny, I see people arguing this point a lot. In my university's student council election debates several years ago, someone asked the question of the candidates: "I have noticed that the <student run campus clothing store> sells clothes primarily made in Guatemala and Honduras. It is well known that these countries exploit workers in sweat shops to produce their goods and I want to know what you will do about it."Originally posted by: Harvey
Bullshit! We can and should worry about what other countries do. Manufacturing goods for the American market in countries with exploitive working conditions kills American jobs, which is reflected in higher unemployment, in turn reducing tax revenues and raising the costs of dealing with the resulting problems.
Most of the candidates gave the "safe" answer: "I... uh... didn't know about that. Well I'd encourage that store, and all student owned stores to buy goods made in Canada."
The last candidate was hispanic. Her answer: "I'm from Guatemala. My family still lives there. People here feel bad that their clothes come from my country, and they want to take those jobs away. The fact is, while people work long hours for little pay, it's better than the alternative. If you take those jobs away, some people in my family would have nothing and they would starve. Yes it isn't the greatest situation right now, but the solution isn't to take their jobs away, but to help their economy go forward."
It shows what a idelistic view of the world many in the United States have. Maybe they should get in a dalorian and head back in time to the United States 100 years ago and see how our working conditions and pay were. However what happened was we built up enough capital to advance ourselves and increase our standards of living and working conditions.
People who have knee jerk reactions to cut off trade to these 3rd world countries because the people working in these shops work under conditions that are appaling by our standards arent doing those people any favors. You cut off the trade and where do those people go? They go back to being unemployed with little ability to advance their standard of living.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Free trade is bad? That's news to me.
I always hear talk of exploitation, poor environmental standards, poor labor practices and of course the always popular "they took ur jebs!" To be honest some of those do actually have merit, particularly the last one. Yes, there are losers in free trade. Overall the pie is bigger but the distribution of who gets that pie is going to skew toward the higher educated for the US. Free trade for the most part won't cause unemployment, it'll just shuffle around the make up of the job market making the unskilled jobs lower paying and the skilled jobs more attractive. This is actually one thing our government can directly deal with. I know redistribution of wealth via the government is kind of a dirty phrase if you want everyone to be on board with free trade, the losers from free trade are going to have to see at least part of that bigger pie.
Exploitation and poor labor standards is not something we can directly effect. Major labor movements will come forth when the supply of labor stops being nearly perfectly elastic. Wages will rise and with that comes more power to the worker who then can demand better working conditions. Taking away free trade depresses their wages and gives them less power.
The word exploitation is overused, me thinks. While yes, corporations do take advantage of the fact that the people in developing nations are willing to work for ridiculously low wages, there is a reason the people are willing to accept them. These people can get better, more stable pay than subsistence farming where they are likely horribly indebted to the local money lender. The health hazards are similar so the choice is clear for a lot of them.
Now the environment...that is a tough one. The problem with the environment is that maintaining it is more costly (excluding cost externalities). Heck, the US hasn't really been huge on the environment until fairly recently. Maybe instead of raising trade barriers we could possibly provide aid geared toward more environmentally friendly companies. I mean, it's our planet too, right? Considering we're the ones that can afford it the best, shouldn't the western countries be ponying up some cash to clean up developing environments as well?
Say what??
You laugh at the people who've lost there jobs because companies outsource to places where the cost of living is so much cheaper then turn around and want this country to pony up the cash to clean up developing countries messes caused by greedy coporations?
Your brain obviously isn't hitting on all of it's cylinders.