A kind act is never too small to matter. - Me(as far as I know)
No one's excited
Unless they are divided
Someone's going to have to give in
It seems uncertain - 311
It is impossible for a minimum-wage earner to make a net economic contribution to society, they simply do not earn enough. Yet many economists ignore the extraneous costs. When such a large portion of the people in the UK and USA earn such low wages, something is dysfunctionally wrong.
Sorry, but low wages result from low employment and low employment is the result of the economic suicide of allowing jobs to be shipped off shore. The government has abandoned protective tools in order to enrich their fellows. Marching in the streets alone will bring little notice from the elite government politicians because it is a hollow display of resentment. But, marching in the streets with a rifle over your shoulder will scare the hell of of them. They will see their very lives are at risk and will abandon their self interests to do the will of the people. They will suddenly reject their belief in globalism (that makes money for their friends) and embrace protectionism by implementing long overdue tariifs on Chinese goods. This will of course force their rich friends to come home and embrace the American worker.
In light of this, your continuous arguments about "the benefits of free trade" and comparative advantage are insufficient. True, they directly benefit those actually involved in the trading. But what about the extraneous effects? This improved efficiency will not necessarily be enough to compensate for job losses, or the increase in inequality caused by lower wages.
All 'developed' countries benefit from trade. The winners can compensate the losers. In Anglo-Saxon countries that compensation may not occur, but that has nothing to do with trade. That reflects a class ridden structure that feeds off on underpayment, underemployment and a lack of opportunityIn light of this, your continuous arguments about "the benefits of free trade" and comparative advantage are insufficient. True, they directly benefit those actually involved in the trading. But what about the extraneous effects? This improved efficiency will not necessarily be enough to compensate for job losses, or the increase in inequality caused by lower wages.
But more commonly, the trade will be beneficial to one country, while hurting another country. And also remember that each country is heterogenous. Free trade helps some, takes away opportunities from others. Free trade does not necessarily create more wealth in both countries. Think about this, it should be fairly obvious. It might make sense for the business owner to outsource, but the small ammount of money he saves might be only a fraction of the wages that are lost in his country, and so ultimately it could drive him out of business because his customers do not have jobs.
Or importing from another country may be slightly cheaper, but most of the costs go to paying for fuel (to transport it) rather than to wages. So it could hurt both countries involved in the trade. (just an example)
I am just trying to say that your Free Trade and Keynesian ideologies are only isolated elements of a wider economic understanding. In the same way that Georgism is only one element. If you do not look outside of your ideology, it will not be possible for you to see how Free Trade can be harmful.
Free Trade takes away jobs, drives wages downwards. Keynesianism has potential economic disincentives, typically is wasteful of money. And if money has to be borrowed, it tends to transfer wealth from the middle class into the hands of the wealthy. You should seriously examine these effects to determine whether the benefits of your ideologiy is worth the cost.
Last edited by Anders Hoveland; Jun 13 2012 at 05:08 AM.
Again you only show that you don't know what you're talking about. In terms of trade, the prisoners dilemma is used to show how 'beggar thy neighbour' optimal tariffs (based on the premise of a 'terms of trade' gain from reducing trade volumes, essentially reflecting market power) will fail and therefore should be avoided through multilateralism.If you think in terms of game theory, I will also mention The Prisoners Dilemma. Although the trade might seem mutually beneficial to both parties, it could actually have a net detrimental effect through less direct means.
Utter garbage! That view is reliant on long rejected mercantilism. Your views are not based on any sound economics, demonstrating only that your nationalism hinders valid conclusionBut more commonly, the trade will be beneficial to one country, while hurting another country.
I see no substance to your fumbling effort to recall economic terms. Do you work at Burger King? Your response is utter rubbish and your English is terrible.