"Free Trade Reduces World Suffering" - Page 2

Deathby · #11 (**permalink**) 12-07-2004, 05:06 PM

Don't forget that excessive growth isn't always good. There was a huge period of growth before the Great Depression before everything just collapsed.

Free trade is bad, properly regulated globalisation is good. I agree with that. But what if one country has greater diplomatic leverage than another in a bilateral trade agreement? A western country has more resources than an say Indonesia and so can use its power to force trade agreements its own way. We can all say that it won't happen, but clearly it will. If you import food into Indonesia then farmers who sell rice to the cities will be screwed over since they have higher margins than the companies in the western country.

Tedminator · #12 (**permalink**) 12-07-2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlackBait";p=&quot

The global average per capita income rose strongly throughout the 20th century, the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. Globalization has not worked for the poor as you claim.

Countries are now involved in a "race to the bottom" to attract and retain investments. Multinational corporations are taking advantage of this to employ sweatshop labour and then skim off huge profits while paying very little tax. How is this helping the standard of living for people at the bottom???

It helps the standard of the people at the bottom by raising the bottom. It hurts the ones at the top who can't compete on wages. It isn't a race to the bottom, it's a race to "equilibrium" in economist's terms, a race to the middle in everyday parlance.

yeah wot pinnipaldi said. FilthyRich nation cannot have freetrade with DirtPoor nation.. the downward 'equilibrium' will cost the FilthyRich nation too much.

FilthyRich nations and DirtyRich nations can have freetrade since the 'equilibrium' won't have to move too far down for the richer nation.
DirtyRich can also freetrade with nations a few rungs down... and so on down the ladder.

FlackBait · #13 (**permalink**) 12-07-2004, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlackBait";p=&quot

The global average per capita income rose strongly throughout the 20th century, the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. Globalization has not worked for the poor as you claim.

Countries are now involved in a "race to the bottom" to attract and retain investments. Multinational corporations are taking advantage of this to employ sweatshop labour and then skim off huge profits while paying very little tax. How is this helping the standard of living for people at the bottom???

It helps the standard of the people at the bottom by raising the bottom. It hurts the ones at the top who can't compete on wages. It isn't a race to the bottom, it's a race to "equilibrium" in economist's terms, a race to the middle in everyday parlance.

Can you site examples of these poor countries where we’ve seen the poor race to the middle?

FlackBait · #14 (**permalink**) 12-07-2004, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedminator";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlackBait";p=&quot

The global average per capita income rose strongly throughout the 20th century, the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. Globalization has not worked for the poor as you claim.

Countries are now involved in a "race to the bottom" to attract and retain investments. Multinational corporations are taking advantage of this to employ sweatshop labour and then skim off huge profits while paying very little tax. How is this helping the standard of living for people at the bottom???

It helps the standard of the people at the bottom by raising the bottom. It hurts the ones at the top who can't compete on wages. It isn't a race to the bottom, it's a race to "equilibrium" in economist's terms, a race to the middle in everyday parlance.

yeah wot pinnipaldi said. FilthyRich nation cannot have freetrade with DirtPoor nation.. the downward 'equilibrium' will cost the FilthyRich nation too much.

FilthyRich nations and DirtyRich nations can have freetrade since the 'equilibrium' won't have to move too far down for the richer nation.
DirtyRich can also freetrade with nations a few rungs down... and so on down the ladder.

It won't cost the filthy rich nations too much if all we want is the dirt poor countries labor. It's not like we're selling Nike's, etc. to the people who make them. (Using Nike just as an example.)

pinniped · #15 (**permalink**) 12-08-2004, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlackBait";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlackBait";p=&quot

The global average per capita income rose strongly throughout the 20th century, the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. Globalization has not worked for the poor as you claim.

Countries are now involved in a "race to the bottom" to attract and retain investments. Multinational corporations are taking advantage of this to employ sweatshop labour and then skim off huge profits while paying very little tax. How is this helping the standard of living for people at the bottom???

It helps the standard of the people at the bottom by raising the bottom. It hurts the ones at the top who can't compete on wages. It isn't a race to the bottom, it's a race to "equilibrium" in economist's terms, a race to the middle in everyday parlance.

Can you site examples of these poor countries where we’ve seen the poor race to the middle?

How about Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and now China for starters. Whew, there's 4 and I haven't even left the far east yet. You might want to thrown in a west germany just for fun.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode