Why do you oppose free trade?

What arguments are there against it?

Other urls found in this thread:

huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html
motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts
nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html
cato.org/blog/super-majority-economists-agree-trade-barriers-should-go
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

define free trade

>Sup Forums is one person
>"we don't"
etc

HAPPENING

HAPPENING

HAPPENING SETH RICH MURDER BY HILLARY PROOF HAS BEEN UNCOVERED BY PRIVATE DETEECTIVE TRUMP MAKING STATEMENT IN 2 HOURS THATS 600PM EST

SPREAD IT WE ARE DEFCON 2!!!

HAPPENING

HAPPPENING

ai 48399620073 has been activated

Because it gives (((them))) more power

international trade without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

There is no free trade in our colony and i have no idea what it could be for us.

Countries like the United States, which have relatively high standards of living, have those standards thanks (at least in part) to things like minimum wage, unions/work regulations, environmental regulations, etc. This makes labour more expensive. Some countries which have none of these things can have much cheaper labour than is possible in the U.S., which some believe gives them an unfair advantage in trade.

It's illegal to pay a child a dollar an hour to make sneakers in a sweat shop here, but in Pakistan? Go ahead! So how can American workers compete, without sacrificing their own standards of living? You impose tariffs. Make it so imports of X from country Y cost 200% more for Americans to buy. This can be done to protect certain industries at home thought to be of great national importance, or to protect workers. Free trade is the opposite - no tariffs.

does that include currency

What do you mean?
Like can you convert one form of currency directly into another based on some conversion factor?

can you trade currency freely

Comparative advantage makes that work out though, that means that the US can focus on developing high-skill industries while getting cheaper labor from other countries and getting better value from goods/manufacturing, etc. If people really gave a shit about other people they would stop trading with those countries until they mandated or raised working conditions to some level or create some international commission or organization in charge of enforcing world standards for working conditions, but people really don't care about that for other countries.
What exactly do you mean, could you provide an example or thought experiment?

'Cause free trade will be our downfall. China Now and India next are impossible to compete against. You can't, due to the higher living standard in the western world and their lack of any regulamentation.

greed

this is bad because...

go be a faggot shill elsewhere.

trading currency, you know
selling dollars and buying up euros or yuan or whatever

It destroys the middle class

Yet another thread with a picture more interesting than the OP.
Post more pls.

Okay, I'd just never heard of a system where that wasn't allowed at all, that's not generally what's assumed when talking about free trade or a lack of it, but makes sense. So yes, you can/could trade currency freely. There will probably be complications like the US not wanting you to use anything other than dollars for certain goods/commodities and countries possibly wanting to secure cryptocurrencies and limit their exchange in order to keep a monopoly on national currency use.

no one has an argument against free trade, we have an argument against outsourcing

environmental degradation and increasing income inequality

We are racing to the bottom. Most people would prefer a society like France to one like Brazil

> I'd just never heard of a system where that wasn't allowed at all
closed currencies
>A closed currency is a currency that you can only get in the country in which it is used.
In other words you cant trade it anywhere except in the country

Pornography is a neurotoxin and it's really hard to stop masturbating to it.

Thanks for introducing me to that, user. Seems like a terrible idea that would inhibit trade severely but there's probably some type of reasoning behind it.

"Free Trade" works between relative economic equals. It would make quite a bit of sense for the US to have Free Trade Agreements with other 1st World economies.

However, when the US and other 1st World Economies enter into these agreements with literal shitholes in the 3rd World, this is when so called "Free Trade" policies become detrimental to the economic stability of the 1st World Economy.

its an idea thats supposed to inhibit trading currency, so you cant have somebody like soros short 10 billion shekels and crash your currency

it becomes detrimental to both economies, unless youre a rich globalist

I'm all for free trade of people, I'd like to trade some pajets for qt ruski grills.

excellent point my good ladpai
when multinational corporations control 3rd world politicians, kiss your human rights and any chance of your own country entering the 1st world goodbye

true that
its only free trade if the movement of labor is free as well
if only capital is free to move, this is a market distortion

American workers should be allowed to move to Mexico to apply to work in the factories that used to be located in the USA

Be careful because that increasingly sounds like one world government. You will have 100 Americans moving to Mexico but will have 1000000 Mexicans moving to US. Restricting large scale movement of people benefits everybody, while the capital it can come and go as markets dictate.

People who oppose free trade are:

a) afraid to lose their shitty jobs to unskilled competition who's willing to work for less

b) afraid brown people will steal their gibs

tl;dr - if you oppose free trade you are a loser and your economic value is 0. which means you should be euthanized.

/sent from my iphone

I'm sure the middle class longs for the times when a TV set cost half a year worth of wages...

Free trade kills the quality of life and standard of living in superior Western countries and closes the gap between 1st and 3rd world wages. Therefore free trade is absolutely a no-no.

large movements of capital is equally detrimental, because capital represents a base of resources that are essentially transplanted ie sold to somewhere else.

ok lets compromise

If a Mexican company moves its factory to the US, Mexicans can apply to work in the new factory in the US.

If a US company moves its factory to Mexico, Americans can apply to work in the new factory in Mexico.

You write like a little kid. I bet you think everyone in the world is created equal.

Labor is the most essential ingredient in trade, and a trade item itself. Without free movement of labor, or at least an equal or similar labor regulations, "free trade" doesn't actually exist.

But freedom of movement is a terrible idea among different nations. See: Europe.

The whole reason of moving a factory to Mexico/Indonesia,etc. is to make more money by being able to drastically cut wages to people who are willing to work for far less in an economy in which those lower wages will go a longer way. Those people working previously are accustomed to the higher wages and in their country due to a higher cost of living probably need those wages to make it by. Asking Americans to move to Mexico and adjustingly lower their standard of living, etc. so much is ridiculous really.

>2017
>muh free trade

we are heading for neofeudalism at full steam, meaning real freedom is getting a myth of the past sooner as you can say "vassal", and you faggot are still dreaming of tales from the last millenium

careful what you wish for

huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html

motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

There is no such thing as "Mexican" company of "American" company, these are not national/public undertakings but private ventures. Only reason it would move to Mexico is because it made them financial sense, if you force it to make cars in US at higher cost eventually there will be a Mexican car company that will make your "American" company go extinct or poach its market share.

Thats why it is regulated. But for trade there will have to be exchange of capital/goods no way around it.

>Asking Americans to move to Mexico and adjustingly lower their standard of living, etc. so much is ridiculous really.
no, not asking. that's not my point. the point is that if Americans are willing to earn less in Mexico, because they should understand that the living cost is lower, then they should be able to do so.

Arguing against this is arguing against free trade. You aren't against free trade are you goy, I mean guy?

Imagine it like this. You have fruits in your garden. Your neighboor asks for some fruit, so you sell it very cheap. He then produces marmalade, and sells it back more expensively.

Years go by, and you're still very poor while he is very rich thanks to his marmalade company. You grow old, and die. Your son takes over. He tries to make marmalade, but the son's neighboor is much better at it, so he goes bankrupt. The neighboor buys the orchard and is now the boss of your son.

Your grandson goes to college with the money his father saved and ends up being the manager of the marmalade company while the owner lives in a beach resort.

This is the problem with free trade. Poor countries who do not have access to technology will eventually driven into bankrupcy, and the only way to stop the rich countries is to prevent them from getting your natural resources until you develop a local economy.

This is why Chile is rich, and Bolivia is poor... But bolivians are free to denounce the US on the UN, while the chileans have to stay silent in front of injustice.

Free trade is why we had a coup, free trade is what makes brother kill brother... and no, it wasn't always like this...

we arent flooded by europeans tho

a) True. But you're german. Your country is not full of unskilled brown morons like mine.

b) We would if we could.

Oh and about being euthanized, sure. Let's make a global poll and ask which countries should be erased. Yours will rank very high on the list since economic value does not erase the crimes of your grandparents, so I wouldn't even try to get such discussions started while the US and Russia are calling the shots.

Free trade is a meme. Every country should pick the policy that best serves in economic interests at the time. It should be flexible and committed to results, not idealism. Times change. Currencies change. Goals change.

Sticking to one concept "muh free trade" is just a lazy way of not having to think about what is best for the situation and possibly going again what you "know" is the best way.

This

Well that sounds horrible for competition in developed countries

I don't

>What arguments are there against it?

The biggest fish with the most money can underprice his competitors, to the point the weaker ones collapse, then he can buy them out, and repeat the process. Ultimately this can lead to a monopoly, which is bad for free trade. i.e. Free Trade can end up killing itself, and has a history of doing so.

It's sometimes healthy to have minor restrictions on free trade to prevent monopolies.

Of course, the truth in this world is the jews have held an effective monopoly on money, food ,energy and arms -the key commodities, for a long time. There is some free market play within the tight power structure, but no chance for outsiders to become big for long.

>There is no such thing as "Mexican" company of "American" company, these are not national/public undertakings but private ventures.
No one is arguing that these are national/public undertakings. I am arguing that if an American factory is moved to Mexico, then Americans formerly employed in that factory should be ABLE to move to Mexico as well. You cannot seriously argue that society is adversely affected by outsourcing when there is evidence in the form of falling median household income. This makes it a national issue.


>Only reason it would move to Mexico is because it made them financial sense, if you force it to make cars in US at higher cost eventually there will be a Mexican car company that will make your "American" company go extinct or poach its market share.
You naively believe that a company moving its factory to Mexico does so to lower costs to the consumer? Actually, it's to increase profitability. And in doing so, it pretty much eliminates any possibility of a local firm surpassing the multinational firms now dominating their local market. I would love to be able to purchase a cheap, good Mexican car like a Hyundai or something, that's real capitalism and competition. Outsourcing is market distortion that only helps the top economic tier in the developed country at the expense of indigenous worker rights, environmental sustainability and of course the developed country's lower classes. The government is left to pick up the tab in these otherwise economic backwaters. See: Michigan.

Yeah, you're right. I read somewhere that feudalism emerged like this:

1.- Specialization of work
2.- Rise of industry owners
3.- Collapse of the roman empire and trade
4.- Global crises and rise of poverty
5.- Poor people become subjects of former industry owners to secure food or pay debt (now land-owners)
6.- Rise of small lords who swore fielty to more powerful lords to prevent other lords from taking their land and vassals: Feudalism.

If the global economy collapses, most of Europe will be utter chaos since you guys can't produce enough food.

>There is no such thing as "Mexican" company of "American" company, these are not national/public undertakings but private ventures.
>he unironically thinks corporations have no national interests

>Actually, it's to increase profitability

That's northern-hemisphere mentality. Smaller latinamerican companies exist to provide work for the family and friends, others to solve problems of the local community.

While what you say is true today, if more people thought like the world would be a better place fpr everyone, and not just the US.

"global collapse" or constant, ongoing state of crisis (which we have right now), doesn't matter: both lead to a broadly unnoticed transformation of states/government power (states make so much debt they sooner or later have to get "privatised" in many ways), so the rests of "puplic" power is lost and in the end all the power, INCLUDING legislative, judiciary and monopole of force is ion the hands of uncountable private relationships.

corporations are the new princedoms.
you already can see the development if you know where to look. the bigger the corporation (the richer the landlord), the bigger its reign.

see development of Academi (former blackwater) or "security" industry in general: total private, military power = mercenary forces of feudalism


take away the glasses. see through it: it's just a different time, different clothes, different tools.

same planet, same species, same behaviour.

I didn't mean it is just for cutting costs, but it just makes them financial/business sense. I ask you a counter point, will the American workers that move to Mexico be willing to work for Mexican level of wages instead of American ones? Reality is that a lot of the work lower class does is not really worth the prices that comes in wages. I have seens loads of jobs get eliminated because of advent of computers. They are now much more efficiently done, but those jobs people used to do couple decades ago just don't exist anymore. Only reason for lowering wages in developed countries is because of market conditions, local and global. Eventually these jobs will get eliminated,you cannot force it stay and stay at same wages.

Corporations definitely have national interests, but their main focus is growth and profitability.

free trade works nice when there are 2 imaginary things: perfect compentition and perfect information.
state/oligarchs/corporate globalist fight other competion with lack of information/unjust laws(lobby)/subsidy...etc..it's too complex to be fair, globalists exploit it.

Its not free trade, that term is doublespeak for whats a really unfair deal that purposefully disrupts the economies of the developed nations and constricts trade with bureaucratic chokes, but if you can point out what makes it free, go for it.

>East india co
>Not above Monarch or at least Gentry

Shit jpg. Also the numbers are wrong too as top professions arent that exclusive.

Natalie is so hot

Also why the fuck is east india co and everything close to that period classified as feudalism

Holy shit, its fucking retarded

>tfw studying to become a central banker

Because it's a propaganda term that autistic libertarians love to include in every discussion. I hate libertarian ancaps more than I hate socialists.

Well considering economists are generally center-left neoliberals who are pro-market for the most part and are overwhelmingly Democrat (all of which suggests they're very un-Libertarian) and at the same time are overwhelmingly pro-free trade there's more to it than libertarianism.

nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html
cato.org/blog/super-majority-economists-agree-trade-barriers-should-go

Ancap libertarians tend to be a bit more extreme. At least pro-free trade economists support some regulation.

naturally classically trained economists prefer the movement of goods and capital

Not really, they support regulation within markets, but not really on trade. They pretty much argue for the abolition of nearly all tariffs and trade barriers.

>economic value does not erase the crimes of your grandparents
>crimes of your grandparents
np, Jesus made sure we don't have to deal with that original sin shit ever again.

Because fit will eventually lead to monopolization.
Pure capitalism leads to corruption, which is why there needs to be safety nets and some sort of welfare system.
Pure communism leads to stagnation, which is why there needs to be incentives to work.
Finding the balance is the key.
Pic in OP is Natalia Inoue btw

Because it destroys nations. Marx knew this and liked it because of that:

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." -- from the speech, "On the Question of Free Trade," given in Brussels, 1848.

Well, I am inclined to agree, but my country skipped feudalism since we're a former colony so I doubt we'd probably revert to more tribal and democratic systems if the current one would collapse (google koyag mapuche if you're interested).

We are quite free, believe it or not, since our "princes" rotate rather frequently, and recruit smart people from the lower classes regularily. This gives the false illusion of representation, making it unnecessary to concentrate power.

Therefore I don't think latinamericans risks losing public inflence in legislative and judiciary powers. The use of force is usually very limited. When we were like 8 million, we lost like 1000 on the most bloody of wars. When we were 14 million, we lost only 3000 to 9000 to the Military Dictatorship. Who cares who holds the stick if he only waives it around?

Now, while we're very "awake" in some aspects, we do risk the complete loss of control over land, resources and the source of work, which could lead to a sort of slavery or class system.

We may be of the same species, but we certainly behave differently.

Free trade has nothing to do with deregulation, or getting rid of safety nets or the social welfare system. The EU is a largely free trade area which still has market regulations and EU countries still have social safety nets and welfare systems.

Hahahahaha. We chileans love germans, don't worry. We wanted you guys to win WW1 and WW2. We even have prussian helmets and all!

But... My foreign friends say they want to obliterate you, and that Jesus has not forgiven you, because he was a jew. :p