4 ms·

Before even reading the article (Hey, I'm a real blogger!): Perhaps because they (rightly or not) feel they have been pushed to the borders of society and rende

by dotcoma 10y ago

Before even reading the article (Hey, I'm a real blogger!): Perhaps because they (rightly or not) feel they have been pushed to the borders of society and rendered unable to provide for themselves and their families by government policies, such as for example free trade agreements that have destroyed factory jobs (for example in the Rust Belt in the US and in areas of the UK that voted in favour of Brexit). How did I do?

OJFord 10y ago
I don't think anybody voted to leave the EU to end free trade in the UK. Trade can be freer without the EU - no slow central bureau deciding with whom we are free to trade. No central price setting. No obligation for HM Government to open tender for public projects to foreign companies - which may seem protectionist, but it's not free trade unless you're free to choose as you please.
- visarga 10y ago
  Free trade agreements are negotiations where the countries involved make concessions in order to balance out their exchanges. When UK will go out in the world to make FTAs, it will have to make a lot of concessions, probably more than those that were previously with EU. Having to negotiate with so many countries at once will put UK in a weaker position and get worse terms than normal.
vacri 10y ago
If there was no government, there'd be nothing to assign protective tariffs in the first place, and the market would be even 'freer'. As it stands the government still limits transactions to some extent (eg: embargos on hostile nations) (of course, if there were no government, there wouldn't even be global trade in the first place, but I'm just talking about trade deals here)
- stretchwithme 10y ago
  people traded before governments and international borders existed. But, yes, certainly harder to have property without governments protecting property rights.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Yes, they did. But long trade routes were expensive, and there was nothing like the current globalisation of labour. People making cheap garments in China weren't undercutting the European makers of clothes, for example.
MarkMc 10y ago
That explains the rise of Donald Trump, but not the previous 30 years when many US factory workers supported the Republican party. Although both parties have similar trade policies, haven't the Democrats generally been more critical of free trade?
csydas 10y ago
In regards to some peoples opinion on the U.S. government? You did okay. On the article, little off. The article had a tone about it of folk who feel "cheated", who did everything they thought they were supposed to and still ended up in a bad place. Ultimately these folk look at others who are receiving welfare and feel like the welfare recipients get it easy. The article tries to paint some genuine frustration into the complaints, but it still sounds like people voting against stuff because a political machine told them to. I feel bad and understand feeling cheated, but it also comes off as a bit petulant, especially with how they use their vote to just make matters worse in the hope of upholding some vague ideals.

by dotcoma 10y ago

OJFord 10y ago

I don't think anybody voted to leave the EU to end free trade in the UK. Trade can be freer without the EU - no slow central bureau deciding with whom we are free to trade. No central price setting. No obligation for HM Government to open tender for public projects to foreign companies - which may seem protectionist, but it's not free trade unless you're free to choose as you please.

visarga 10y ago
Free trade agreements are negotiations where the countries involved make concessions in order to balance out their exchanges. When UK will go out in the world to make FTAs, it will have to make a lot of concessions, probably more than those that were previously with EU. Having to negotiate with so many countries at once will put UK in a weaker position and get worse terms than normal.

vacri 10y ago

If there was no government, there'd be nothing to assign protective tariffs in the first place, and the market would be even 'freer'. As it stands the government still limits transactions to some extent (eg: embargos on hostile nations) (of course, if there were no government, there wouldn't even be global trade in the first place, but I'm just talking about trade deals here)

stretchwithme 10y ago
people traded before governments and international borders existed. But, yes, certainly harder to have property without governments protecting property rights.
- vacri 10y ago
  Yes, they did. But long trade routes were expensive, and there was nothing like the current globalisation of labour. People making cheap garments in China weren't undercutting the European makers of clothes, for example.

MarkMc 10y ago

That explains the rise of Donald Trump, but not the previous 30 years when many US factory workers supported the Republican party. Although both parties have similar trade policies, haven't the Democrats generally been more critical of free trade?

csydas 10y ago

In regards to some peoples opinion on the U.S. government? You did okay. On the article, little off. The article had a tone about it of folk who feel "cheated", who did everything they thought they were supposed to and still ended up in a bad place. Ultimately these folk look at others who are receiving welfare and feel like the welfare recipients get it easy. The article tries to paint some genuine frustration into the complaints, but it still sounds like people voting against stuff because a political machine told them to. I feel bad and understand feeling cheated, but it also comes off as a bit petulant, especially with how they use their vote to just make matters worse in the hope of upholding some vague ideals.