4 ms·
I'm a big supporter of free trade, but the article makes some good points. Free trade agreements where companies agree not to impose import tariffs are a simpl
by swatow 12y ago
I'm a big supporter of free trade, but the article makes some good points. Free trade agreements where companies agree not to impose import tariffs are a simple and good way to encourage free trade. But when it comes to government regulation that might in some sense be regarded as restricting free trade, things are a lot murkier. I wonder why these free trade agreements don't just lower tariffs even further, instead of setting up this sort of agreement. E.g. Australia still has a luxury car tax, which is a barrier to free trade that could easily be removed.
- twelvechairs 12y agoIm a suppirter of free trade too, but most 'free trade agreements' arent about free trade, they are just trade agreements. That said, a luxury car tax is far from the worst offender for free trade.
- swatow 12y agoWhat is a "trade agreement" that isn't a free trade agreement? And what is a worst offender than the luxury car tax? I guess corn subsidies are an example.
- nickbauman 12y agoTPP is not about free trade, it's about helping bigger players getting a deeper dip in the trough. Pretty much the opposite of freedom to trade. (As usual, "free trade" or "free markets" is a euphemism for "trade policy that will help the guy using the term 'free trade'". Truly free markets would entail lots of bad things like freedom of children to work and the freedom to create Bohpal disasters. This is no exception)
- swatow 12y agoFree trade is not a euphemism when it means eliminating tariffs. It allows a lot of good things like Chinese workers being able to earn $2 an hour instead of $0.20 an hour. EDIT: $2 an hour is from about 5 years ago when Chinese manufacturing was more controversial. Now it's more like $3.50 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-manufacturing-wages-rise-7-202130472.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-manufacturing-wages-rise...)
- slantedview 12y agoI know what you mean, but in America free trade means NAFTA and TPP so it basically is a euphemism.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- programmarchy 12y ago> bad things like freedom of children to work and the freedom to create Bohpal disasters Children working is better than a family starving to death no? Child labor laws are a first world problem, and could have disastrous consequences for the third world. Union Carbide was a corporation, a legal fiction in which ownership is divorced from responsibility, that cannot exist without privileges given to it by a state. State capitalism has little to do with actual free markets i.e. voluntary trade in a free society. Agree with you about the TPP, though, and the way that the term "free market" is often used in the vulgar sense.
- digi_owl 12y agoWhy are they starving in the first place? Pay the parent(s) a survivable wage already.
- swatow 12y agoWho is going to pay the parent a survivable wage? And how is that person going to get the money to pay them? People are starving (well usually the problem is that they are very poor, not literally starving) because they don't have money, because they don't produce things of value that they can trade for money. Free trade gives people the opportunity to produce more value (e.g. by working in factories or producing cash crops) so that they can earn more money.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- digi_owl 12y agoWhy does this feel like another one of those 1 2 3 ? PROFIT jokes?
- swatow 12y agoI don't know. Why does economic orthodoxy result in smug self assured replies and downvotes, even though when people choose to educate themselves (by taking college courses, not reading blogs or non-mainstream sources) they almost all are convinced by the orthodox outlook? I honestly feel like a pro-vaccination advocate when I post about economics. EDIT: And to address your (very weak) point, how does working in factories not make people in poor countries richer? Are you aware of what a Chinese farmer makes per year, compared with a Chinese factory worker?
- jsprogrammer 12y agoFree trade is not compatible with secretly negotiated treaties.
- syntern 12y agoFree trade agreement doesn't require negotiation: either you agree to trade free, or not. The so-called free trade agreements are about trade-restrictions and exceptions. Doublespeak at its best.
- icebraining 12y agoPrisoner's dilemma? It's in the best interests of both parties to drop trade barriers, but not if the other party doesn't, so you need negotiations to make sure they will.
- matt4077 12y agoTariffs are already quite low and it wouldn't make much of a difference (between some companies, like the US and Europe). Regulations just have become the more important factor hampering trade and thus have to be a focus of trade agreements if you actually want to increase trade. In a few cases, countries do use regulation as tool for protectionism (the french do fun things to keep german trains out of France). In other cases, consumer preferences lead to different regulations, like Europeans hating GMO. And then there's Phillip Morris suing Australia and Bolivia for trademark infringement, because they require shock images on cigarette cartons...