4 ms·

It really sounds like you're using the "studies have shown" fallacy. What I see with "free trade" agreements is exploitation and creative accounting. Send your

It really sounds like you're using the "studies have shown" fallacy. What I see with "free trade" agreements is exploitation and creative accounting. Send your manufacturing one mile across the border to hire cheap labor through "third parties" that have much weaker workers' rights laws, no healthcare, and lax environmental oversight. Then send those products back to the US and reap tremendous profit, while having your hands clean of any environmental or human exploitation because it was done on another "set of books" across the border. Same amount of damage, but we reap massive profits while keeping our noses clean. What's not to love about that ?

digitaltrees 10y ago
Except that over time, wages across the boarder rise. We have seen that in mexico and china. We saw that here in the US when textile manufacturing moved from New York and Boston to North Carolina. All of these same arguments against free trade were used early in american history with interstate commerce. North Carolina allowed child labor in textile mills and had low wages. Are you telling me New York is worse off because Investment Banks replaced the Textile District in Manhattan? I don't think so. America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services and products and protect our fellow citizens harmed by the transition. The answer isnt to start a trade war with mexico and china in the hopes the we can go back to having child labor in textile mills and family farms.
- digler999 10y ago
  do you realize you just made a pro child-labor argument ? You're saying exploitation of children was justified because NYC became a great city with investment banks and expensive rent. The same argument could be used to justify slavery: "Oh look how well it helps the cities where all the money is stored! We can't possibly have equality for all because that would reduce the massive profits of the few!" Exploitation is not ok, even in the short run, even if it produces a good outcome for the few who benefit from it. The massive profits made off the backs of mexican workers aren't going to mexicans, they are being exported back to the shareholders of the US companies who sent their manufacturing there. > America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services Therein lies the inequality. Notice you said America needs to. We need to maintain that differential so that the exploitation keeps working. Because shareholders can't reap massive profits if everyone increases their sophistication. You have to keep the slaves in their proverbial cage, lest they run away.
  - digitaltrees 10y ago
    You are drawing the literal opposition conclusion of my argument. The fact that North Carolina allowed child labor was part of how they pulled manufacturing out of the north east, but over time, as the benefits of the economic growth produced wealth, it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor. My argument is that trade with the developing world will pull them out of poverty, decreasing global inequality, and as the population becomes wealthy, they will demand more labor, environmental and social protections. This is supported by the history of the developed worlds progress over the last 30 years. I am not suggesting we preserve a differential between regions or countries. I am suggesting that free trade tends to create equilibrium over time as wages converge. I am also suggesting that tariffs and trade barriers preserve economic disparity as it keeps assets, labor, capital and knowledge locked behind these barriers. I think a cursory reading of history supports this argument first with the development of the American economy and now the global economy. Last point: China is now experiencing outsourcing of textile and furniture manufacturing to Vietnam and other counties because wages have become too high.
    - naveen99 10y ago
      You are right, but the manufacturing workers see hypocrisy. We have lots of tarrifs in the form of licensing and visa requirements for doctors and lawyers and software engineers. We also have tarrifs on poor people / welfare with visa requirements (except Mexico in practice). Either remove visa requirements on high skill labor, or add tarrifs for external goods. Let usa join European Union if you are not ready to have a global Union.
    - digler999 10y ago
      > it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor. I dont see how the free market eliminated child labor. I see government regulation as eliminating child labor. I agree with you on the principle that putting more dollars in poor economies is a good thing. But I cannot reconcile that with the fact that those economies are attractive to businesses primarily for the purpose of circumventing rules and established practices that help us (healthcare and environment, for example). I was watching videos on youtube about the Bangladesh shipbreaking industry. All these western corporations used the ships to make money, then circumvent all environmental regulation by disposing / selling them to Bangladesh for scrap where the toxins go into the sea, workers paid $2/day have no safety gear for dealing with chemical/fall/crushing/burning hazards, and the handful who own the companies reap tremendous profits selling the scrap steel. Everyone wins...except for the poor, who risked/reduced their lives for the awesome consolation of a few bucks (not even considering any marine life that once lived nearby).

digitaltrees 10y ago

Except that over time, wages across the boarder rise. We have seen that in mexico and china. We saw that here in the US when textile manufacturing moved from New York and Boston to North Carolina. All of these same arguments against free trade were used early in american history with interstate commerce. North Carolina allowed child labor in textile mills and had low wages. Are you telling me New York is worse off because Investment Banks replaced the Textile District in Manhattan? I don't think so. America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services and products and protect our fellow citizens harmed by the transition. The answer isnt to start a trade war with mexico and china in the hopes the we can go back to having child labor in textile mills and family farms.

digler999 10y ago
do you realize you just made a pro child-labor argument ? You're saying exploitation of children was justified because NYC became a great city with investment banks and expensive rent. The same argument could be used to justify slavery: "Oh look how well it helps the cities where all the money is stored! We can't possibly have equality for all because that would reduce the massive profits of the few!" Exploitation is not ok, even in the short run, even if it produces a good outcome for the few who benefit from it. The massive profits made off the backs of mexican workers aren't going to mexicans, they are being exported back to the shareholders of the US companies who sent their manufacturing there. > America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services Therein lies the inequality. Notice you said America needs to. We need to maintain that differential so that the exploitation keeps working. Because shareholders can't reap massive profits if everyone increases their sophistication. You have to keep the slaves in their proverbial cage, lest they run away.
- digitaltrees 10y ago
  You are drawing the literal opposition conclusion of my argument. The fact that North Carolina allowed child labor was part of how they pulled manufacturing out of the north east, but over time, as the benefits of the economic growth produced wealth, it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor. My argument is that trade with the developing world will pull them out of poverty, decreasing global inequality, and as the population becomes wealthy, they will demand more labor, environmental and social protections. This is supported by the history of the developed worlds progress over the last 30 years. I am not suggesting we preserve a differential between regions or countries. I am suggesting that free trade tends to create equilibrium over time as wages converge. I am also suggesting that tariffs and trade barriers preserve economic disparity as it keeps assets, labor, capital and knowledge locked behind these barriers. I think a cursory reading of history supports this argument first with the development of the American economy and now the global economy. Last point: China is now experiencing outsourcing of textile and furniture manufacturing to Vietnam and other counties because wages have become too high.
  - naveen99 10y ago
    You are right, but the manufacturing workers see hypocrisy. We have lots of tarrifs in the form of licensing and visa requirements for doctors and lawyers and software engineers. We also have tarrifs on poor people / welfare with visa requirements (except Mexico in practice). Either remove visa requirements on high skill labor, or add tarrifs for external goods. Let usa join European Union if you are not ready to have a global Union.
  - digler999 10y ago
    > it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor. I dont see how the free market eliminated child labor. I see government regulation as eliminating child labor. I agree with you on the principle that putting more dollars in poor economies is a good thing. But I cannot reconcile that with the fact that those economies are attractive to businesses primarily for the purpose of circumventing rules and established practices that help us (healthcare and environment, for example). I was watching videos on youtube about the Bangladesh shipbreaking industry. All these western corporations used the ships to make money, then circumvent all environmental regulation by disposing / selling them to Bangladesh for scrap where the toxins go into the sea, workers paid $2/day have no safety gear for dealing with chemical/fall/crushing/burning hazards, and the handful who own the companies reap tremendous profits selling the scrap steel. Everyone wins...except for the poor, who risked/reduced their lives for the awesome consolation of a few bucks (not even considering any marine life that once lived nearby).