Defence and the Free Market

[Forty Two]

Let's take the argument away from China, with its rather dodgy mixture of state control and rampant capitalism, and look at other poor third world countries that make goods for first world countries using very cheap labour. No intentional "marxist conspiracy" stuff applies here; they sell their stuff on the world market, and huge retail giants are very happy to buy it at rock bottom prices, and sell it to US and Australian consumers at a hefty profit. Is this dumping, is it "market distortion" or is it simply the way a globalised capitalist system works, and manufacturing workers in first world countries losing their jobs just have to suck it up?

If goods are manufactured in one market, which has little to no regulation of its workplaces, little to no tax, little to no minimum wage, and then sold into a market where manufacturers are subjected to heavy regulatory burdens, high taxes, high minimum wages, etc., then it is not "a" free market.

You seem to be describing what most of us would regard as fair trade. So what exactly is the difference between free and fair trade?

You tell me. I'm simply pointing out the notion that a free market entails equality of treatment under the law. If there is a distortion of the market by having governments impose distinctly different burdens and costs on manufacturers, there isn't a free market.

Free trade agreements, like NAFTA and such are not based on the notion that there is one great free market -- what it's doing is benefiting the businesses that go from the US to Mexico and then manufacture there and resell to the US at lower prices, taking advantage of the poor working conditions, low wages, and low costs/burdens in the Mexican Market and undercutting the American market.

Oh wait a minute, now you are saying that free trade is something that you just spent a couple of pages arguing it wasn't.

No, because in the paragraph you just quoted, I did not call it "free trade." NAFTA supporters call it free trade. But, I don't call it free trade, because it isn't. Is this really that hard to fathom? I mean. This is what Trump is talking about. It's not a level playing field. You have the destruction of American domestic manufacturing by this. It seemed great in the 1990s, because we had a ton of domestic manufacturing left and lots of money, so when a flood of cheap consumer goods hit the market, American companies that built factories overseas made a mint and consumers were fat and happy with cheap DVD players and sweatshirts imported from Pakistan that cost $5.

That benefits a portion of the US business and manufacturers -- those that went overseas to build plants, and those that shut down American plants and factories to go overseas. But, that can't last forever. And, we're seeing rumblings of what will happen in the future, as prices rise and we have no ability to shift to the US to manufacture things here. The manufacturing base is disappearing.

[pErvinalia]

Let's take the argument away from China, with its rather dodgy mixture of state control and rampant capitalism, and look at other poor third world countries that make goods for first world countries using very cheap labour. No intentional "marxist conspiracy" stuff applies here; they sell their stuff on the world market, and huge retail giants are very happy to buy it at rock bottom prices, and sell it to US and Australian consumers at a hefty profit. Is this dumping, is it "market distortion" or is it simply the way a globalised capitalist system works, and manufacturing workers in first world countries losing their jobs just have to suck it up?

If goods are manufactured in one market, which has little to no regulation of its workplaces, little to no tax, little to no minimum wage, and then sold into a market where manufacturers are subjected to heavy regulatory burdens, high taxes, high minimum wages, etc., then it is not "a" free market.

You seem to be describing what most of us would regard as fair trade. So what exactly is the difference between free and fair trade?

You tell me. I'm simply pointing out the notion that a free market entails equality of treatment under the law. If there is a distortion of the market by having governments impose distinctly different burdens and costs on manufacturers, there isn't a free market.

Free trade agreements, like NAFTA and such are not based on the notion that there is one great free market -- what it's doing is benefiting the businesses that go from the US to Mexico and then manufacture there and resell to the US at lower prices, taking advantage of the poor working conditions, low wages, and low costs/burdens in the Mexican Market and undercutting the American market.

Oh wait a minute, now you are saying that free trade is something that you just spent a couple of pages arguing it wasn't.

No, because in the paragraph you just quoted, I did not call it "free trade." NAFTA supporters call it free trade. But, I don't call it free trade, because it isn't. Is this really that hard to fathom?

Well if you'd write more precisely it would help. How am I supposed to know you aren't referring to free trade when you mention free trade agreements?

I mean. This is what Trump is talking about. It's not a level playing field. You have the destruction of American domestic manufacturing by this. It seemed great in the 1990s, because we had a ton of domestic manufacturing left and lots of money, so when a flood of cheap consumer goods hit the market, American companies that built factories overseas made a mint and consumers were fat and happy with cheap DVD players and sweatshirts imported from Pakistan that cost $5.

That benefits a portion of the US business and manufacturers -- those that went overseas to build plants, and those that shut down American plants and factories to go overseas. But, that can't last forever. And, we're seeing rumblings of what will happen in the future, as prices rise and we have no ability to shift to the US to manufacture things here. The manufacturing base is disappearing.

That's neoliberalism for you.

[pErvinalia]

Are you going to address this - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1665998 ?

[Forty Two]

Well if you'd write more precisely it would help. How am I supposed to know you aren't referring to free trade when you mention free trade agreements?

LOL

https://www.amazon.com/Economics-101-Co ... 144059340X

I mean. This is what Trump is talking about. It's not a level playing field. You have the destruction of American domestic manufacturing by this. It seemed great in the 1990s, because we had a ton of domestic manufacturing left and lots of money, so when a flood of cheap consumer goods hit the market, American companies that built factories overseas made a mint and consumers were fat and happy with cheap DVD players and sweatshirts imported from Pakistan that cost $5.

That benefits a portion of the US business and manufacturers -- those that went overseas to build plants, and those that shut down American plants and factories to go overseas. But, that can't last forever. And, we're seeing rumblings of what will happen in the future, as prices rise and we have no ability to shift to the US to manufacture things here. The manufacturing base is disappearing.

That's neoliberalism for you.

Indeed, that's why liberalism, without the neo, is a better way to go. Folks like Clinton I, and now Clinton II, and Obama, as well as the Bushes, they were all very much in favor of NAFTA and such.

"We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,...have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
...when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.: - H. Ross Perot, 1991 (candidate for President, running against Bill Clinton, NAFTA supporter).






25 years later.... it's the same conversation. Mexican standards of living still have not come up. And, the American manufacturing base has been decimated.

[Forty Two]

It's not that the American nation or consumer is being coerced into buying Chinese products -- it's that one market is being subjected to more onerous regulations than the other. China uses near slave labor, and as such they're dumping products on the US. That's not a free market. What would be a free market would be if both the Chinese producers and American producers followed substantially the same rules and regulations.

Regarding the antidumping duties, you are confusing a de jure law with de facto results. Sure, there is a system for reporting dumping, and such, but it's slow, cumbersome, and ineffective.

Also, when I wrote "then there are two entirely different "markets," not one combined market."" -- that's not saying there "isn't a market." It's saying there are two markets - foreign to each other. Saying there are two markets is not saying there isn't a market.

Regarding your misunderstanding of what a free market is - and your reference to invisible hand -- you just misunderstand what a free market is. I don't know how many times it can be said that "free market" does not mean anarchy, and that free market capitalism PRESUPPOSES the existence of government and government regulation to maintain a free market. It doesn't exist in a state of nature or anarchy. It doesn't mean "every person for himself" or might makes right, or strong prey on the weak, or whatever.

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that a free market requires government and regulation?

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that you are erecting strawmen? I have never said that free markets don't require government and regulation. I even explicitly pointed this out to you a few posts ago.

I've pointed it out to you. I guess we agree. What more needs to be said?

The strawman you create is to point out a tariff and say "see, free market doesn't work."

Yours is an absurd argument - you're fishing for the red herring that you can use to declare that free markets just don't work, but you either purposefully misrepresent what almost ever free market economist states, or you just don't understand economics at all.

It's not really absurd.

It's absurdly absurd.

I understood free markets to be allegedly self-sustaining and beneficial as long as no one was coerced into acting in the market and while everyone follows fair laws of the land. But when you have to start putting extra government controls on the market to protect against monopolies,

Anticompetive monopoly is antithetical to a free market and free market capital. It is generally not a market to have one player controlling the supply and price. Supply and demand cannot as a practical matter operate to set price in that environment.

that's an extra step. I could argue that a market requires redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor as they don't function fairly and properly when wealth inequality gets too large. Can you see that they are the same thing? The government stepping in to punish "winners".

They aren't the same thing. Because there is a difference between punishing winners in an operating, functioning market where the "information" created by market forces operates to set prices, etc, and punishing an anticompetitive monopolist who has individual control over supply and price, and can thereby set prices at a level different than that which would be set by a competitive market.

[pErvinalia]

Well if you'd write more precisely it would help. How am I supposed to know you aren't referring to free trade when you mention free trade agreements?

LOL

Yes of course, black is white. When you write "free trade agreements", you don't actually mean free trade agreements.

[Svartalf]

Well if you'd write more precisely it would help. How am I supposed to know you aren't referring to free trade when you mention free trade agreements?

LOL

Yes of course, black is white. When you write "free trade agreements", you don't actually mean free trade agreements.

No, it means one side will inundate the other's market with stuff while still jealously guarding its own markets... Canada has had enough complaints with the US lumber trade

[Forty Two]

Dude, what someone labels it doesn't control its character. Calling something "fair trade" doesn't make the trade fair, either. You have to look at the details -- what it's actually doing.

What I wrote was "Free trade agreements, like NAFTA and such are not based on the notion that there is one great free market -- what it's doing is benefiting the businesses that go from the US to Mexico and then manufacture there and resell to the US at lower prices, taking advantage of the poor working conditions, low wages, and low costs/burdens in the Mexican Market and undercutting the American market." It's abundantly clear that I'm referring to NAFTA as a free trade agreement because that's what "FTA" stands for - Free Trade Agreement. North American Free Trade Agreement. But, like the "Affordable Care Act," it doesn't fucking mean that the care is really affordable, or that the trade is really free.

Like I said -

[pErvinalia]

It's not that the American nation or consumer is being coerced into buying Chinese products -- it's that one market is being subjected to more onerous regulations than the other. China uses near slave labor, and as such they're dumping products on the US. That's not a free market. What would be a free market would be if both the Chinese producers and American producers followed substantially the same rules and regulations.

Regarding the antidumping duties, you are confusing a de jure law with de facto results. Sure, there is a system for reporting dumping, and such, but it's slow, cumbersome, and ineffective.

Also, when I wrote "then there are two entirely different "markets," not one combined market."" -- that's not saying there "isn't a market." It's saying there are two markets - foreign to each other. Saying there are two markets is not saying there isn't a market.

Regarding your misunderstanding of what a free market is - and your reference to invisible hand -- you just misunderstand what a free market is. I don't know how many times it can be said that "free market" does not mean anarchy, and that free market capitalism PRESUPPOSES the existence of government and government regulation to maintain a free market. It doesn't exist in a state of nature or anarchy. It doesn't mean "every person for himself" or might makes right, or strong prey on the weak, or whatever.

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that a free market requires government and regulation?

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that you are erecting strawmen? I have never said that free markets don't require government and regulation. I even explicitly pointed this out to you a few posts ago.

I've pointed it out to you.

Despite me not needing it pointed out. As explained to you three times now.

I guess we agree.

So why the fuck are you continuing to erect this strawman?!?

What more needs to be said?

Well, you could promise to stop erecting strawmen.

The strawman you create is to point out a tariff and say "see, free market doesn't work."

I see the problem. You have absolutely no idea what a strawman is. A strawman is when you falsely attribute an argument or point of view to someone else. Me talking about my own understanding of free markets, is categorically NOT attributing an argument to someone else.

that's an extra step. I could argue that a market requires redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor as they don't function fairly and properly when wealth inequality gets too large. Can you see that they are the same thing? The government stepping in to punish "winners".

They aren't the same thing. Because there is a difference between punishing winners in an operating, functioning market where the "information" created by market forces operates to set prices, etc, and punishing an anticompetitive monopolist who has individual control over supply and price, and can thereby set prices at a level different than that which would be set by a competitive market.

can you translate that first part to English? You seem to be saying that a person with great wealth holds no power advantage over an average or poor person in influencing the conditions of a marketplace. THAT would be absurd if you were saying that.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, what someone labels it doesn't control its character. Calling something "fair trade" doesn't make the trade fair, either. You have to look at the details -- what it's actually doing.

What I wrote was "Free trade agreements, like NAFTA and such are not based on the notion that there is one great free market -- what it's doing is benefiting the businesses that go from the US to Mexico and then manufacture there and resell to the US at lower prices, taking advantage of the poor working conditions, low wages, and low costs/burdens in the Mexican Market and undercutting the American market." It's abundantly clear that I'm referring to NAFTA as a free trade agreement because that's what "FTA" stands for - Free Trade Agreement. North American Free Trade Agreement. But, like the "Affordable Care Act," it doesn't fucking mean that the care is really affordable, or that the trade is really free.

Like I said -

YOU labelled it. You said "free trade agreements, like NAFTA...". You do realise that NAFTA contains "free trade" as part of the name, right? YOU adding to that means you are distinguishing from what is already described in the name. Why didn't you just write "Agreements, like NAFTA"?!? You need to stop banging your head against the wall. It clearly affects your ability to think clearly.

Let's try and make it simple for you with an experiment. Show me how you would describe NAFTA as a real free trade agreement and not the other kind of free trade agreement you seem to think exists. Would it be 'the free trade free trade agreement, like NAFTA...'?

[Forty Two]

I've pointed it out to you.

Despite me not needing it pointed out. As explained to you three times now.[/quote] Given the woeful ignorance displayed by your posts, it really appeared that you did need it pointing out. And, here we go again with your usual refrain of "I've pointed it out, and explained it to you..." Screw off. Discuss the topic or fuck the fuck off.

I guess we agree.

So why the fuck are you continuing to erect this strawman?!?

I'm not. You are. You're the one who erected the strawman and declared that your strawman notion of free markets don't work. I'm not restating the arguments. The exchange above demonstrates that your argument failed, and that you have little to no idea what you're talking about.

What more needs to be said?

Well, you could promise to stop erecting strawmen.

Project much? this entire thread was based on your strawman. You could promise to stop being such a tool.

The strawman you create is to point out a tariff and say "see, free market doesn't work."

I see the problem. You have absolutely no idea what a strawman is. A strawman is when you falsely attribute an argument or point of view to someone else. Me talking about my own understanding of free markets, is categorically NOT attributing an argument to someone else.

No, your argument was a straw man argument. Your problem is that you don't understand how a logical fallacy works. And, if you create a straw man, then knock it down and declare that free markets don't work, then you've committed a straw man fallacy.

that's an extra step. I could argue that a market requires redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor as they don't function fairly and properly when wealth inequality gets too large. Can you see that they are the same thing? The government stepping in to punish "winners".

They aren't the same thing. Because there is a difference between punishing winners in an operating, functioning market where the "information" created by market forces operates to set prices, etc, and punishing an anticompetitive monopolist who has individual control over supply and price, and can Talethereby set prices at a level different than that which would be set by a competitive market.

can you translate that first part to English? You seem to be saying that a person with great wealth holds no power advantage over an average or poor person in influencing the conditions of a marketplace. THAT would be absurd if you were saying that.[/quote]

If you took Economics 101, you'd understand. Buy Economics for Dummies, or something.

If you think that I just "seemed to be saying that person with great wealth holds no power advantgage over an average or poor person..." then you either have deficient cognitive abilities or you're a dishonest fuck.

Since when does economics or a free market require that one person have no power advantage over another? What the fuck are you on about? Of course people have power advantages over others. Rich people can finance stuff easier and buy more things. Strong people can lift more stuff. Smart people and savvy people can get things done easier. Good talkers can persuade people better. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Forty Two]

Dude, what someone labels it doesn't control its character. Calling something "fair trade" doesn't make the trade fair, either. You have to look at the details -- what it's actually doing.

What I wrote was "Free trade agreements, like NAFTA and such are not based on the notion that there is one great free market -- what it's doing is benefiting the businesses that go from the US to Mexico and then manufacture there and resell to the US at lower prices, taking advantage of the poor working conditions, low wages, and low costs/burdens in the Mexican Market and undercutting the American market." It's abundantly clear that I'm referring to NAFTA as a free trade agreement because that's what "FTA" stands for - Free Trade Agreement. North American Free Trade Agreement. But, like the "Affordable Care Act," it doesn't fucking mean that the care is really affordable, or that the trade is really free.

Like I said -

YOU labelled it. You said "free trade agreements, like NAFTA...".

That's what it's called, fucknuts.

You do realise that NAFTA contains "free trade" as part of the name, right?

Considering I typed it out in longform in my last post, to which you just responded, of course I know that. Maybe if you'd fucking read what you're commenting on, you'd have a better idea what you're talking about.

Just because it's called a free trade agreement doesn't make it fucking free trade. Just like calling something an affordable care act doesn't make the fucking care affordable. How dense are you? I can refer to the damn thing as health care reform or the affordable care act without admitting that there has been "reform" or that the care provided is affordable. I can refer to free trade agreements like CUFTA, NAFTA, JUFTA, IUFTA, AUFTA, etc. without admitting that they really do create free trade.

Holy hell.

YOU adding to that means you are distinguishing from what is already described in the name. Why didn't you just write "Agreements, like NAFTA"?!? You need to stop banging your head against the wall. It clearly affects your ability to think clearly. [. /quote]

LOL - duh, because nafta is called a free trade agreement. There's nothing wrong with referring to it as such. I don't call the Affordable Care Act just "an Act," just because I know and everyone knows that there is very little, if anything, "Affordable" about it.

Let's try and make it simple for you with an experiment. Show me how you would describe NAFTA as a real free trade agreement and not the other kind of free trade agreement you seem to think exists. Would it be 'the free trade free trade agreement, like NAFTA...'?

Yes, that's what I wrote above "free trade agreements, like NAFTA...." it's a free trade agreement, there are many of them. But, they don't always do exactly do what their designation states. I am not referring to "another kind of free trade agreement that I think exists." NAFTA exists. It's called a free trade agreement, but does little to nothing to create a single free market. It reduces barriers to entry for goods from a low cost, unregulated market, with low minimum wage, no retirement, and low benefits market, to allow goods to be manufactured in that market and shipped into the higher cost, heavily regulated, high minimum wage, high retirement, high benefits market, which is of great benefit to those companies building factories in Mexico, but is of tremendous harm to factories in the United States. That's not a fucking operational free market. That's one market heavily distorting another market.

Again -

[pErvinalia]

Discuss the topic or fuck the fuck off.

You don't get to misrepresent people and then get all shouty at them for calling you on it. Stop continually committing logical fallacies like the Strawman and tu quoque repeatedly across the forum. You do it in basically every thread you take part in.

The strawman you create is to point out a tariff and say "see, free market doesn't work."

I see the problem. You have absolutely no idea what a strawman is. A strawman is when you falsely attribute an argument or point of view to someone else. Me talking about my own understanding of free markets, is categorically NOT attributing an argument to someone else.

No, your argument was a straw man argument. Your problem is that you don't understand how a logical fallacy works. And, if you create a straw man, then knock it down and declare that free markets don't work, then you've committed a straw man fallacy.

Black is white! You really are a piece of work. I never said anyone else made the argument that a tariff means it's not a free market. To be a strawman I have to attribute the argument to SOMEONE ELSE. Where the fuck did I do that? And even if I did, which I didn't, it STILL WOULDN'T BE A STRAWMAN, as "tariffs" ISN'T an argument or a point of view. Tariffs are conceptually real things that occur in the world. I literally can't have invented them, as they existed before I was born.

that's an extra step. I could argue that a market requires redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor as they don't function fairly and properly when wealth inequality gets too large. Can you see that they are the same thing? The government stepping in to punish "winners".

They aren't the same thing. Because there is a difference between punishing winners in an operating, functioning market where the "information" created by market forces operates to set prices, etc, and punishing an anticompetitive monopolist who has individual control over supply and price, and can Talethereby set prices at a level different than that which would be set by a competitive market.

can you translate that first part to English? You seem to be saying that a person with great wealth holds no power advantage over an average or poor person in influencing the conditions of a marketplace. THAT would be absurd if you were saying that.

If you took Economics 101, you'd understand. Buy Economics for Dummies, or something.

Someone is getting petulant...

If you think that I just "seemed to be saying that person with great wealth holds no power advantgage over an average or poor person..." then you either have deficient cognitive abilities or you're a dishonest fuck.

Sorry bro, you've hit the limit on personal attacks I am willing to take from you in the last few weeks. This one and everyone from now on is going on report.

Since when does economics or a free market require that one person have no power advantage over another? What the fuck are you on about?

Because that's COERCION. What's the difference between a single person (or a group of wealthy people) distorting the market and a single company distorting its market?

Of course people have power advantages over others. Rich people can finance stuff easier and buy more things. Strong people can lift more stuff. Smart people and savvy people can get things done easier. Good talkers can persuade people better. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Better companies can do things easier over lesser companies and become effective monopolies. What the fuck is the difference? Stop frothing and start thinking.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, what someone labels it doesn't control its character. Calling something "fair trade" doesn't make the trade fair, either. You have to look at the details -- what it's actually doing.

What I wrote was "Free trade agreements, like NAFTA and such are not based on the notion that there is one great free market -- what it's doing is benefiting the businesses that go from the US to Mexico and then manufacture there and resell to the US at lower prices, taking advantage of the poor working conditions, low wages, and low costs/burdens in the Mexican Market and undercutting the American market." It's abundantly clear that I'm referring to NAFTA as a free trade agreement because that's what "FTA" stands for - Free Trade Agreement. North American Free Trade Agreement. But, like the "Affordable Care Act," it doesn't fucking mean that the care is really affordable, or that the trade is really free.

Like I said -

YOU labelled it. You said "free trade agreements, like NAFTA...".

That's what it's called, fucknuts.

You do realise that NAFTA contains "free trade" as part of the name, right?

Considering I typed it out in longform in my last post, to which you just responded, of course I know that. Maybe if you'd fucking read what you're commenting on, you'd have a better idea what you're talking about.

Just because it's called a free trade agreement doesn't make it fucking free trade. Just like calling something an affordable care act doesn't make the fucking care affordable. How dense are you? I can refer to the damn thing as health care reform or the affordable care act without admitting that there has been "reform" or that the care provided is affordable. I can refer to free trade agreements like CUFTA, NAFTA, JUFTA, IUFTA, AUFTA, etc. without admitting that they really do create free trade.

Holy hell.

YOU adding to that means you are distinguishing from what is already described in the name. Why didn't you just write "Agreements, like NAFTA"?!? You need to stop banging your head against the wall. It clearly affects your ability to think clearly. [. /quote]

LOL - duh, because nafta is called a free trade agreement. There's nothing wrong with referring to it as such. I don't call the Affordable Care Act just "an Act," just because I know and everyone knows that there is very little, if anything, "Affordable" about it.

Let's try and make it simple for you with an experiment. Show me how you would describe NAFTA as a real free trade agreement and not the other kind of free trade agreement you seem to think exists. Would it be 'the free trade free trade agreement, like NAFTA...'?

Yes, that's what I wrote above "free trade agreements, like NAFTA...." it's a free trade agreement, there are many of them. But, they don't always do exactly do what their designation states. I am not referring to "another kind of free trade agreement that I think exists." NAFTA exists. It's called a free trade agreement, but does little to nothing to create a single free market. It reduces barriers to entry for goods from a low cost, unregulated market, with low minimum wage, no retirement, and low benefits market, to allow goods to be manufactured in that market and shipped into the higher cost, heavily regulated, high minimum wage, high retirement, high benefits market, which is of great benefit to those companies building factories in Mexico, but is of tremendous harm to factories in the United States. That's not a fucking operational free market. That's one market heavily distorting another market.

Again -

God you are interminable. You simply just can't admit that you could have made a mistake, can you?! Have you ever been wrong in your life? It's going to happen one day, man...

[pErvinalia]

And any chance you could stop fucking up the quote tags? Don't you review your post after you post it? How is anyone supposed to follow what you are saying when the quotes are all fucked up?