Red pill me on free trade and why it's bad

Red pill me on free trade and why it's bad.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=up132Fzk_vA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's not

But it's not

It's not

It's not

It's not (economics major).

It's not.

It isn't

Free migration is vastly worse than free trade which is good as long as there's no migration

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

Free trade maximizes global wealth.

It does not necessarily increase median wealth.

>what is being sold as free trade is never really free trade

FPBP

It's not.

Currently, there is no such thing as free trade.

Even in "trade deals" Side A ends up fucking over side B by only applying the deal to very specific sectors or ignoring the rules entirely while side B gets the shaft.

Free trade isn't.


Free Trade Agreements may be.

The two aren't coterminous, but they're not mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is crap because no one should be entitled to all the profits of a business and all the profits generated by the workers just because he was the first to have an idea.

Free trade is great, but the problem is that the US government has laws that make it uncompetitive against other countries. Our minimum wage and worker safety laws might be nice, but they make it so that we can't compete against China which has neither of those laws.
Protectionism needs to exist in some form if minimum wage and worker protection laws exist, or we could repeal those laws and become competitive on the free trade market since American workers are more productive than workers in other countries.

The workers are free to start their own business if they want to.

its only bad if the small handful of firms with the resource to capitalize on it are given unfair advantages by corrupt officials.

It can have severe short term effects on concentrated geographies, though I'm not sure that makes it bad overall. It can also lead to really extreme impacts on wealth distribution when its introduced, which can rub people the wrong way if the existing distribution wasn't determined by merit. these effects can be seen in the post-soviet states that liberalized.

Jews constantly undermine it, if you want to keep it sometime you have to make laws from people abusing it.

What is Market Saturation for 500 Alex?

No they're not, especially with corporations that employ slave labor you can't compete with.

It makes it easier and cheaper to manufacture products somewhere else and to ship them over seas to reach the consumers. This means while the cost of products goes down ultimately the loss of jobs will eat up the purchasing power of the consumers creating a need for increasing unemployment and other social benefits..

Basically freetrade is the driving force behind 3.rd world capitalist development and the rise 1.st world socialism.

If everyone could start their own business and be their own boss no one would be working for other people.

Labour unions could pool together and buy out considerable portions of Fortune 500 firms and distribute the shares equally.

this

Did the worker buy the matieral?

Did the worker buy the tools?

Did the worker purchase the land the business resides on and did he pay to have the building built?

Does the worker pay the utilities and the taxes on the entire process? If the answer to these questions is NO then the worker has made nothing, is entitled to nothing outside what they're paid for their labor and can fuck off.

most people who work for major corporations are not unionized/are part of separate unions.

The actual solution is just to make outsourcing illegal. All corporations have to hire within their own country. This will destroy a lot of companies but fucked if I care, it will create a bunch of smaller more local companies.

ITT economic brainwashed retards.

Free trade works only as long as it operates and is owned within the boundaries of it's own country.

Foreign companies/banks can leverage(print money) and buyout any assets if they're unhampered.

Government limits that by balancing foreign trade, so that whatever comes in, must also equal in value as to what goes to foreign countries.

Otherwise, you'd end up like South Africa, over exposed in the market and lose your entire country's value to foreign central banks/institutionalized speculators.

Just lol if anyone who believes in the freetrade meme. The irrationality is boggling.

Institutional traders have as much leverage(free money) to buy out anything that can turn profit and set prices to whatever they want. Just ask yourself, is it okay for a foreign country to just print money, and buy up all the companies of another nation, while the foreign country protects its own economy from other foreign central banks? This is how the world really works, there is no other alternative "free" world. This is how the world's chessboard is.

Here is a decent introduction.

youtube.com/watch?v=up132Fzk_vA

Its not.
The problem is countries trying to put a bunch of unrelated conditions onto it in order to secure their own little corner.

>Capitalism is crap because no one should be entitled to all the profits of a business and all the profits generated by the workers just because he was the first to have an idea.

kek, i'd agree if it weren't for the fact that workers are literally selling their time and labour to companies/corporations which pay them back in the form of a wage

it's like a farmer reeing that he doesn't get a slice of pie from a baker who bought the farmer's apples to bake a pie

Here's an argument on how free trade could be bad.

Regulations distort the economy. This might be done for the greater benefit, however. Entities act in their own interest and will act with others such that their potential is maximized. However, this doesn't mean that the sum total welfare is maximized. In fact, quite contrary to 'free market' advocates, anarchy does NOT create max welfare. Yes, government intervention necessarily reduces welfare compared to the same situation without the government's hand. However, the situation without the government does not arise without the intervention. A company will not willingly engage in trade with another. They'd just as well amass enough power to pillage and destroy potential trading partners.

Essentially, governments arise as bandits demanding tribute to secure peace. They can be formalized and have laws written, but the reason they exist is that the peace they provide is worth the price of the tribute demanded.

Now, while regulations enacted by the government might improve welfare, this is only in autarky (i.e. within the given economic system without trade). As regulations necessarily induce a cost to businesses, those businesses which have access to the same market without the regulations have an advantage. Tarriffs and trade barriers exist to even out the cost of these regulations. With free trade, the 'price' of the regulation is not being properly covered and home industry collapses. This doesn't even cover 'benefits' other countries might give to their exporting industries to compete and undermine industry in the home country.

you might want to brush up on some macro econ basics m8

Nothing wrong with free trade, but free trade never needed trade agreements.

Wouldn't it be more like a baker, having been given ingredients, getting mad he doesn't get a slice of the pie when he did all the work of transforming the ingredients? You imagine the one who transforms the ingredients as having received the reward and the provider upset that they didn't get a slice. But what matters here is that the owners of the means of production provide nothing but the opportunity of the worker to use these means to produce and then take most of the production.

>Free trade works only as long as it operates and is owned within the boundaries of it's own country.

Well that's retarded, even the US government doesn't believe this, otherwise they wouldn't use sanctions to punish other countries.

Sanctions are nothing else than refusing to trade with a certain country. By your logic Russia should be booming right now.

Hey, that was concise and useful. Thanks, matey.

no, because the baker's the one who's selling the pie

:^)

It's not in concept. Free trade allows capital to be employed to its fullest as certain types of capital are best suited for the production of certain types of goods.

The issue is that the world doesn't exist in an economics 101 textbook; people often don't play by the same rule book, nations often don't share common interests, and equilibrium can take years to reach.

For instance, nations that don't operate with similar wage floors, safety laws, etc can out compete nations with them even if their relative production is lower. Likewise, nations themselves often need to create captive markets and local monopolies to ensure stability; Japan grows rice in large amounts not because it can't import it for a cheaper price, but because the government doesn't want to deal with the chaos that would happen if prices spiked or they went to war. Finally, logically production will gravitate where resources are best utilized until the benefit of production there is nil. The problem is this equilibrium will achieve an equilibrium of relative inputs; labor will lower wages until the wage is as low as productively possible. Assuming all things are equal, this would be fine, but the world is drastically unequal. So, everything will become an equilibrium of less if you were on the artificially restricted high end, and an equilibrium of more if you were on the low end. I.e., populations that had more in the end will end with less. If you live in a first world nation, you should oppose free trade as eventually you will end up with less.

>muh free trade meme.

Look, you fucking retard. Every functioning country has trade agreements with every other functioning country. You simply have to.

When buzzwords like "Free" and "partnership" get placed on those trade agreements, it's so that idiots like you whose participation in democracy has never exceeded voting and watching Saturday Night Live don't bother to question who that trade agreement actually benefits.

So TLDR
KYS faggot.

The owner of the bakery sells the pie. If that is also the baker, that's one thing. But if it's the capitalist providing the store, machinery, etc... then it's not the same.Wealth begets wealth. And wealth is passed down through hereditary lines such that the children of the wealthy own and control the future proletariat.

winrar

Also maximum global wealth does not imply best result for any one country.

Mancur Olson is a great read for concepts of institutional economics and the rational for the existence of governments.

And there's your answer you fucking moron. Not everyone has the drive, ability or skill to be a business owner. This is why they are entitled to a large cut of the profits; their skill set is not common.

If the baker is not being paid a wage for selling his pie, he is a slave not a worker. This is not a difficult concept.

No you moron. It's about industry saturation. Only X amount of businesses can exist in Y amount industries. It's literally a 0 sum game.

>But if it's the capitalist providing the store, machinery, etc... then it's not the same

How is it not the same? Is some one takes the risk and provides the investment and capital (buying the apples, having the ovens, the land for the store, etc.), are they no entitled to what profits they earn? A workers time and production are like apples to be bought and to later made into a pie to be sold at a price greater than the sum of it's part. If the worker invests into the company by providing capital, than yes, he is entitled to some of those profits proportional to what he put in.

>wealth is passed down through hereditary lines such that the children of the wealthy own and control the future proletariat

I'm sure you're paying back you're parents/guardians for all the money they've spent on you.

Because there is no such thing as free.

and yet new businesses crop up everyday in industries. If you have something revolutionary to add to the industry, you're successful. If you try the same old crap, you're simply copying and don't deserve shit.

Industry saturation has nothing to do with innovation and skills. If you are an excellent leader, with no new ideas, you will work your way up an existing company and earn a decent wage. If you are an excellent leader, with new ideas, you can start your own business and earn a decent wage.

Anything international is bad because international means Jew. Anything national is bad because anything national goes against the international, which is the Jew.

In venezuela prices for food are fixed. Now no one can exploit your hunger. So no one produces food and people eat their fucking pets. Or they starve. But hey, at least no one got rich!

Because westerners have workplace standards and rules and regulations and wage expectations. Developing countries do not. There are people who are willing to do our jobs for a cup of rice a day

What differs is that relative supply of the capitalist and the worker. As there are more workers than needed, the capitalist is able to extract benefit from the workers in excess of the wage provided. As the capitalist is scarce in comparison to the worker, the worker is forced to accept a contract in which their compensation is less than that which they provide.

The difference in the worth provided by the baker and the compensation paid by the capitalist represents a theft from the baker to the capitalist. That the baker should deem it necessary to work such as to continue existence even at a loss of value to the capitalist is an everyday reality we face. That wealth is ultimately created by the arrangement does not mean that it is as its maximum. The capitalist seeks to maximize profit by theft from others. Though greater production could be possible, the capitalist stops such that his/her own benefit is maximized; not that of society. This is similar to the losses incurred through monopolies. The ultimate aim of the capitalist is to incur the greatest theft of the worker through creation of monopolies. If the government should be so supposed as to having been created to maximize the welfare of the citizens, then it moves against the monopoly, breaks up the company, and returns the economy to a start of imperfect to perfect competition. Oligarchies are simply less efficient monopolies.

This

Whilst what you say makes a lot of sense, the fact that you think it is theft is stupid. If you agree to terms that are beneath you, it is your own fault. I've never once had issues getting fair recompense for my services, because I don't sell myself short.

Here's a question. Why would a company pay you anything if your services didn't bring them something even greater than what they paid you?

> within the boundaries of it's own country.
several countries need to import food, otherwise there would be a food shortage. Your country does that too.

> Foreign companies/banks can leverage(print money) and buyout any assets if they're unhampered.
Different currencies have different values. It doesn't matter how much Zimbabwean dollars there are. That only matters to Zimbabweans.

> Institutional traders have as much leverage(free money) to buy out anything that can turn profit and set prices to whatever they want.
"Some people have endless money and they can simply buy anything." That's why no one takes Zimbabwean dollars. The value of money, like everything else in this world, is dictated by supply and demand.

doesn't the employer add value by making your labor more productive? if not, you could simply go it alone.

This. This. This. You have to realize as a worker you're SELLING your own time and skills to whomever you work for. You do not provide capital to your boss, you're an expense.

>Why would a company pay you anything if your services didn't bring them something even greater than what they paid you?

What are you even trying to imply with this question?

Because the people running the company are idiots or you're working for the government.

Free trade is just a cover for applying the Morgenthau Plan to the US.

I think something important to emphasize in all I've said is that the arrangement by which the capitalist steals from the worker could very well be the best possible. It is simply important to acknowledge that those in power do rob from the worker. That it might be the best system possible doesn't mean workers aren't still getting fucked over.

>As the capitalist is scarce in comparison to the worker, the worker is forced to accept a contract in which their compensation is less than that which they provide.

Yes, because an input cannot be bought for more than the value it provides. If a laborer's labor does not add a surplus value above their wage, they are not worth employing as their employment is an economic loss to the employer.

The reason that typically higher level professions in a company are higher paid is that their value is difficult to peg, but their lack of competency is extremely bad for the company. E.g., a CEO is paid a high wage because a poor CEO can destroy a company, thus competition for good CEO's bids their wage up.

Likewise, this surplus value goes to the owner of capital as the owner of capital has an economic incentive to redeploy capital wherever it is utilized best and the value of capital in the arrangement is supreme; the value of a laborer's labor can be measured in their output, without capital the output of value is zero.

>The difference in the worth provided by the baker and the compensation paid by the capitalist represents a theft from the baker to the capitalist

There is no theft here. The exchange is voluntary; a laborer is free to exchange their labor with others, or to labor for themselves.

>That the baker should deem it necessary to work such as to continue existence even at a loss of value to the capitalist is an everyday reality we face.

No, it really isn't. At the point where the disutility of employment is higher than the utility of being employed, the employee quits. If the employee continues to be employed at the current trade off of value-disvalue, then the trade off is obviously worth it to the employed.

>Though greater production could be possible, the capitalist stops such...benefit is maximized; not that of society.
This is an extremely vague measure. What benefit is there in overproduction of goods that are not profitable to produce?

>rob from the worker
>you sell your time and effort you agree upon means you're geting robbed

getting paid =/= investing in the company

How about the theft when the communist government decides that you will work in the fields for no recompense other than a single room shack and a few meager meals of beets and potatoes?

I rather be poor and have the opportunity to improve the quality of life for me and my descendants rather than being a serf for the rest of my life to nepotistic communist overlords.