7 ms·

> If TPP was a legit trade treaty I would expect it to have anti-protectionism provisions Indeed. An actual free-trade agreement would be really simple to impl

> If TPP was a legit trade treaty I would expect it to have anti-protectionism provisions Indeed. An actual free-trade agreement would be really simple to implement. Just stop intervening in trade in any way, and you'll have Free Trade. But that would be against a lot of cronies' interests and very much in the people's interests, so it's never going to happen. On a related note: Stop intervening in what people do with their property, and you'll have a free market. That would preclude taxation though, and so, a lot of people who believe they somehow benefit from someone forcefully taking their money would object.

RogtamBar 11y ago
>Indeed. An actual free-trade agreement would be really simple to implement. Just stop intervening in trade in any way, and you'll have Free Trade. Is free trade even a good idea? Suppose industry in your country has higher costs, because people care about say, waterways, and thus there has to be filtering and proper waste disposal. If you allow free trade from a country where they simply dump waste everywhere, you are punishing industry for doing the right thing, and rewarding polluters.
- sukulaku 11y ago
  > Suppose industry in your country has higher costs, because people care about say, waterways, and thus there has to be filtering and proper waste disposal. Well then people can buy stuff cheaper from abroad, I guess? That's certainly a benefit to them, compared to paying more. There are auxiliary benefits too, because then people have more money left to spend on other things (which contributes to jobs getting created etc). > If you allow free trade from a country where they simply dump waste everywhere, you are punishing industry for doing the right thing, and rewarding polluters. You know no one wants to live in a polluted environment, right? But it's the government everywhere that's supposed to protect it - not people from other countries with their purchasing choices. If you don't buy stuff from China, will China be less polluted? How? Suppose, for the sake of argument, 50% of all people outside of China decided to stop buying Chinese goods as a protest against "bad environmental standards"[1]. What would happen? [1] Nevermind that the standards are circumvented with bribes anyway. Now lots of stuff produced outside of China would become costlier to produce, or might not get produced at all. Living standards would decrease accordingly. Oh, and that might encourage foreign producers to do whatever it takes to lower their costs, including ignoring environmental standards (or bribing their way past them). What about China then? Would the polluting factories etc shut down, or would they be used for producing something foreigners were still buying? Would they keep polluting after being repurposed for something else? Would they pollute even more in an attempt to lower their prices to make their products more attractive to the protesting foreigners? I bet some people would start buying again if the products just were cheap enough. But all in all, you see it's not that simple. You can't expect to force higher environmental standards on anyone by not buying from them, especially when it's the government that decides what companies are allowed to pollute and how much, and those limits are circumvented through bribes.
devsquid 11y ago
The idealized "free trade" view you propose, always makes me think of the idealized "people owned" view of Communism. I think this view, of "free trade", is very popular among my crowd as well as popular among Sci-Fi authors. So I like to try to point out its flaws, as I think it could lead to some scary future consequences. First the most poignant issue with it is; "power begets more power" or "money begets more money". For the most part the rich get richer. Also the truth of the matter is the market can never be "free", there will always be someone clever or rich enough who will seek to exploit and control it. Thus you need regulations to keep these individuals and corporations in check. You then need a strong government that can stand up Second the idea that the money you earn is the money you deserve is wrong. I come from a middle class and stable family. They have provided a world of support to help me succeed in this world. Do I deserve this? No I got lucky. The self made man myth, is utter bullshit. People that "succeed" in life have been helped along the way by the community. Do you really believe a poor person is poor because they don't work as hard as a wealthy person? What about people with mental disabilities, or physical ones? So people who acquire wealth don't really "deserve" it, I put that in quotes because they certainly deserve the money but so do a lot of other people that don't have it. Thus we impose taxation, to serve as a form of wealth redistribution and to create a safety net. This pays for public schools, public roads, transportations, military, etc. Basically the world is not fair and our governance should work to fix that. Third, maintaining a "free market" is also equally important. You need good level of competition in society. Something for people to strive for and to power the whole system. Honestly this market would not be any freer than a libertarian's "free market", as stated previous the idea of a "free market" is a farce. Fourth, think about the world you want to live in. Do you really want to live in a world where poor people are never given decent opportunities? Where they have to struggle and get by purely on corporation donation? What about if everything in your life goes bad, would you want to end up in the gutters or be able to rely on some form of assumed social aid. -ps I don't know very much about TPP, I am just responding to what I perceive is your world view. -pps Clearly neither of our views are how any country operates, but I feel like we should be striving for something that works and not extremism -ppps Sorry if this seems a bit indirect, I'm not necessarily addressing you, but the numerous libertarians on the web in general and this has been partly cut and pasted from another convo.
- 11y ago
sirtaj 11y ago
> But that would be against a lot of cronies' interests and very much in the people's interests, so it's never going to happen. Not necessarily always in the "people's interests". Here's a bit of Wealth of Nations that you don't often see quoted: Corporation laws, however, give less obstruction to the free circulation of stock from one place to another than to that of labour. It is everywhere much easier for a wealthy merchant to obtain the privilege of trading in a town corporate, than for a poor artificer to obtain that of working in it.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Just stop intervening in trade in any way, and you'll have Free Trade. (...) Stop intervening in what people do with their property, and you'll have a free market. Well maybe, but you don't really want a Free Market. Be happy that thanks to not having it, you can still eat food that, while crappy, is not downright poison.
- phyzome 11y ago
  Oh I don't know, I would rather enjoy the excitement of never knowing what day a food manufacturer might decide to start adding melamine to my food with no repercussions.
- sukulaku 11y ago
  When you get downvoted on HN for arguing against freedom, you just know you've screwed up pretty bad.. :p
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    HN moves in a mysterious way Its downvotes to perform...
vidarh 11y ago
> On a related note: Stop intervening in what people do with their property, and you'll have a free market. I'm sure you'll enjoy it when your neighbour decides to open a sewage processing plant.
- VMG 11y ago
  Zoning and contractual guarantees of environmental standards on your property are fully compatible with free trade.
  - xg15 11y ago
    Contractual agreements with whom?
    - VMG 11y ago
      With whoever you purchased your land from.
    - sukulaku 11y ago
      With whatever parties happen to be involved. No one knows, because those circumstances don't currently exist anywhere on the planet.
      - aninhumer 11y ago
        If you're talking about the environment, then everyone is involved. And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws".
        sukulaku 11y ago
        > And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws". Except that no one asked us if we agreed. Without mutual agreement, there is no contract. In reality, laws are commands that we're punished for disobeying. Tell me, what's the practical difference between getting punished for disobeying a King's or Emperor's law, and getting punished for disobeying a law written by politicians or bureaucrats somewhere? Then there's the problem that governments don't actually adhere to their own laws anyway. NSA's surveillance is unconstitutional. That's not a problem for them, but if you disobey laws, you will be punished one way or another. Who do you think you're kidding?

RogtamBar 11y ago

>Indeed. An actual free-trade agreement would be really simple to implement. Just stop intervening in trade in any way, and you'll have Free Trade. Is free trade even a good idea? Suppose industry in your country has higher costs, because people care about say, waterways, and thus there has to be filtering and proper waste disposal. If you allow free trade from a country where they simply dump waste everywhere, you are punishing industry for doing the right thing, and rewarding polluters.

sukulaku 11y ago
> Suppose industry in your country has higher costs, because people care about say, waterways, and thus there has to be filtering and proper waste disposal. Well then people can buy stuff cheaper from abroad, I guess? That's certainly a benefit to them, compared to paying more. There are auxiliary benefits too, because then people have more money left to spend on other things (which contributes to jobs getting created etc). > If you allow free trade from a country where they simply dump waste everywhere, you are punishing industry for doing the right thing, and rewarding polluters. You know no one wants to live in a polluted environment, right? But it's the government everywhere that's supposed to protect it - not people from other countries with their purchasing choices. If you don't buy stuff from China, will China be less polluted? How? Suppose, for the sake of argument, 50% of all people outside of China decided to stop buying Chinese goods as a protest against "bad environmental standards"[1]. What would happen? [1] Nevermind that the standards are circumvented with bribes anyway. Now lots of stuff produced outside of China would become costlier to produce, or might not get produced at all. Living standards would decrease accordingly. Oh, and that might encourage foreign producers to do whatever it takes to lower their costs, including ignoring environmental standards (or bribing their way past them). What about China then? Would the polluting factories etc shut down, or would they be used for producing something foreigners were still buying? Would they keep polluting after being repurposed for something else? Would they pollute even more in an attempt to lower their prices to make their products more attractive to the protesting foreigners? I bet some people would start buying again if the products just were cheap enough. But all in all, you see it's not that simple. You can't expect to force higher environmental standards on anyone by not buying from them, especially when it's the government that decides what companies are allowed to pollute and how much, and those limits are circumvented through bribes.

devsquid 11y ago

The idealized "free trade" view you propose, always makes me think of the idealized "people owned" view of Communism. I think this view, of "free trade", is very popular among my crowd as well as popular among Sci-Fi authors. So I like to try to point out its flaws, as I think it could lead to some scary future consequences. First the most poignant issue with it is; "power begets more power" or "money begets more money". For the most part the rich get richer. Also the truth of the matter is the market can never be "free", there will always be someone clever or rich enough who will seek to exploit and control it. Thus you need regulations to keep these individuals and corporations in check. You then need a strong government that can stand up Second the idea that the money you earn is the money you deserve is wrong. I come from a middle class and stable family. They have provided a world of support to help me succeed in this world. Do I deserve this? No I got lucky. The self made man myth, is utter bullshit. People that "succeed" in life have been helped along the way by the community. Do you really believe a poor person is poor because they don't work as hard as a wealthy person? What about people with mental disabilities, or physical ones? So people who acquire wealth don't really "deserve" it, I put that in quotes because they certainly deserve the money but so do a lot of other people that don't have it. Thus we impose taxation, to serve as a form of wealth redistribution and to create a safety net. This pays for public schools, public roads, transportations, military, etc. Basically the world is not fair and our governance should work to fix that. Third, maintaining a "free market" is also equally important. You need good level of competition in society. Something for people to strive for and to power the whole system. Honestly this market would not be any freer than a libertarian's "free market", as stated previous the idea of a "free market" is a farce. Fourth, think about the world you want to live in. Do you really want to live in a world where poor people are never given decent opportunities? Where they have to struggle and get by purely on corporation donation? What about if everything in your life goes bad, would you want to end up in the gutters or be able to rely on some form of assumed social aid. -ps I don't know very much about TPP, I am just responding to what I perceive is your world view. -pps Clearly neither of our views are how any country operates, but I feel like we should be striving for something that works and not extremism -ppps Sorry if this seems a bit indirect, I'm not necessarily addressing you, but the numerous libertarians on the web in general and this has been partly cut and pasted from another convo.

11y ago

sirtaj 11y ago

> But that would be against a lot of cronies' interests and very much in the people's interests, so it's never going to happen. Not necessarily always in the "people's interests". Here's a bit of Wealth of Nations that you don't often see quoted: Corporation laws, however, give less obstruction to the free circulation of stock from one place to another than to that of labour. It is everywhere much easier for a wealthy merchant to obtain the privilege of trading in a town corporate, than for a poor artificer to obtain that of working in it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> Just stop intervening in trade in any way, and you'll have Free Trade. (...) Stop intervening in what people do with their property, and you'll have a free market. Well maybe, but you don't really want a Free Market. Be happy that thanks to not having it, you can still eat food that, while crappy, is not downright poison.

phyzome 11y ago
Oh I don't know, I would rather enjoy the excitement of never knowing what day a food manufacturer might decide to start adding melamine to my food with no repercussions.
sukulaku 11y ago
When you get downvoted on HN for arguing against freedom, you just know you've screwed up pretty bad.. :p
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  HN moves in a mysterious way Its downvotes to perform...

vidarh 11y ago

> On a related note: Stop intervening in what people do with their property, and you'll have a free market. I'm sure you'll enjoy it when your neighbour decides to open a sewage processing plant.

VMG 11y ago
Zoning and contractual guarantees of environmental standards on your property are fully compatible with free trade.
- xg15 11y ago
  Contractual agreements with whom?
  - VMG 11y ago
    With whoever you purchased your land from.
  - sukulaku 11y ago
    With whatever parties happen to be involved. No one knows, because those circumstances don't currently exist anywhere on the planet.
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      If you're talking about the environment, then everyone is involved. And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws".
      - sukulaku 11y ago
        > And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws". Except that no one asked us if we agreed. Without mutual agreement, there is no contract. In reality, laws are commands that we're punished for disobeying. Tell me, what's the practical difference between getting punished for disobeying a King's or Emperor's law, and getting punished for disobeying a law written by politicians or bureaucrats somewhere? Then there's the problem that governments don't actually adhere to their own laws anyway. NSA's surveillance is unconstitutional. That's not a problem for them, but if you disobey laws, you will be punished one way or another. Who do you think you're kidding?