What to Expect When You're Free Trading

[SFLRN]

This makes no insight into why they accept these wages and conditions nor does it create an excuse for it when better wages and conditions can be given, it is just an old get out for those profiting from others. .

They accept the wages because they likely deem it to be their best option available. Asking what the company’s obligation may is a separate issue. (Obligation to others). If one is concerned with increasing the well-being of those people in the long term then one should support free trade as the best means.

Bottom-line most of the gains are in material goods and these come through paying people in the third world worse wages and the reasons people agree to work for them are often due to much pressure if not coercion like kicking peasants from their land to become unemployed in the city. Or granting tribal lands to large land-owners and making them pat rents or making traditionally organised peasants pay taxes to the amount where they have to work in one of these places or the penetration of the values of a society with marketing and Jonesism that creates demand for products and forces people to work to be considered a valid member of society and so on and so on. You cannot comment on the ethics or "voluntaryness" of a situation without exploring the circumstances and social relationships surrounding it. .

We’re not talking about serfdom. The people, in general, are not coerced into trade. To suggest this is a large trend you need more evidence.

Looking at globalisation from any other point than the mainstream economic makes its benefits far less certain.
.

You mean looking at globalization and disregarding all reliable evidence on the topic? Is there any actual evidence, not supposition, that supports a side against trade?

New Keynesians and most other keynesians are neoclassical economists. New Keynesianism is just a label for his macro views ie an amazingly bastardised hardly recogniseable version of keynesianism. The only real keynesians are the post keynesians, the disciples of those like Joan Robinson and Nicky Kaldor who were colleagues and friends of Keynes himself and their economics is wildly different, generally rejecting marginalism and Keynes really came to do for all intents and purposes.The idea of rational expectation which is central to it would make Keynes turn in his grave, Keynesianism is uncertainty! .

The problem is, there are no significant emotional issues that would cause free trade’s efficiency to be legitimately doubted. If there were actual evidence that free trade were bad you should present it. Historically it has shown to be beneficial, and it has won empirical support. Despite how much you might dislike some of theories and assumptions used in economic theory, it does not refute the data on the topic. If you really had an issue with the evidence then you should show how 93% of economists are using incorrect statistical methods. If economics were not such a math driven field (as it is today with the average graduate candidate needing to have taken at least some proof based mathematics, and to get in they would need a 3.0 average at least in the majority of their math classes) arguing supposition would be more fruitful.

 

[Feela]

They accept the wages because they likely deem it to be their best option available. Asking what the company’s obligation may is a separate issue. (Obligation to others). If one is concerned with increasing the well-being of those people in the long term then one should support free trade as the best means.

You must always look into the circumstances of a trade to see if it is moral or trully voluntary. And still the efficiency comes from offering third world workers less wages and poorer conditions.

We’re not talking about serfdom. The people, in general, are not coerced into trade. To suggest this is a large trend you need more evidence.

All of what I have said and more has happened. At the moment I'm just trying to get you past your superficial arguments and to agree the circumstance of a trade need to be looked into.

You mean looking at globalization and disregarding all reliable evidence on the topic? Is there any actual evidence, not supposition, that supports a side against trade?

I mean douchebag, looking at globalisation and realising that mateerial goods and production of them is not everything.

The problem is, there are no significant emotional issues that would cause free trade’s efficiency to be legitimately doubted. If there were actual evidence that free trade were bad you should present it. Historically it has shown to be beneficial, and it has won empirical support. Despite how much you might dislike some of theories and assumptions used in economic theory, it does not refute the data on the topic. If you really had an issue with the evidence then you should show how 93% of economists are using incorrect statistical methods. If economics were not such a math driven field (as it is today with the average graduate candidate needing to have taken at least some proof based mathematics, and to get in they would need a 3.0 average at least in the majority of their math classes) arguing supposition would be more fruitful.

Wtf? There is more to life than material goods, all the wonderful statistics and such you refer to above only look at material goods and production. Therefore from a holistic, human perpective your argument is far from conclusive unless you are some kind of sociopath who cares only for material possessions.

 

[SFLRN]

You must always look into the circumstances of a trade to see if it is moral or trully voluntary. And still the efficiency comes from offering third world workers less wages and poorer conditions.

The efficiency (of offshore outsourcing) does usually come from lower wages and less stringent safety requirements in the other country. In most cases, coercion is not the main reason countries switch towards free trade.

All of what I have said and more has happened. At the moment I'm just trying to get you past your superficial arguments and to agree the circumstance of a trade need to be looked into.

I am not denying that there have been corrupt governments that used coercion to effectively force workers to work at a certain factory. However, that is not generally the case for the majority of workers.

I mean douchebag, looking at globalisation and realising that mateerial goods and production of them is not everything.

What other significant costs exist? The economy of the affected country becomes more fluid, and thus better able to handle the impact of government mismanagement. An increase in living standards in the poorest countries can often help them gain a degree of political stability (severe poverty can undoubtedly cause a good degree of instability in general). With more resources circulating in an economy the people can afford to spend more on education and health care. In the first world the poorest workers (on the aggregate) gain the benefit of cheaper goods, and increased purchasing power as a result.

Wtf? There is more to life than material goods, all the wonderful statistics and such you refer to above only look at material goods and production. Therefore from a holistic, human perpective your argument is far from conclusive unless you are some kind of sociopath who cares only for material possessions.

Material wealth often grants a number of other benefits , especially in countries with so little in terms of wealth. It is easier for first world residents (ourselves) to suggest that material goods aren't everything, but for countries that have a significant portion of their population making less than $1 a day it would seem somewhat counterintuitive. (There are a number of other relationships related to health and crime rates relating to a per capita country's GDP).

 

[Feela]

The efficiency (of offshore outsourcing) does usually come from lower wages and less stringent safety requirements in the other country. In most cases, coercion is not the main reason countries switch towards free trade.

I am not denying that there have been corrupt governments that used coercion to effectively force workers to work at a certain factory. However, that is not generally the case for the majority of workers.

This is pretty much what I wanted you to admit, minus the quick right off that the circumstances could of been anything but wonderful

As long as you admit that the circumstances of the employment and trade are looked into, that material goods are not everything and that the supposed efficiency comes from paying workers int he third world less and keeping them in lesser conditions this is enough for me.

I'm not about to start a debate on the non-material effects of globalisation nor the circumstances surrounding it, this would take many books to do.

What other significant costs exist? The economy of the affected country becomes more fluid, and thus better able to handle the impact of government mismanagement. An increase in living standards in the poorest countries can often help them gain a degree of political stability (severe poverty can undoubtedly cause a good degree of instability in general). With more resources circulating in an economy the people can afford to spend more on education and health care. In the first world the poorest workers (on the aggregate) gain the benefit of cheaper goods, and increased purchasing power as a result.


Material wealth often grants a number of other benefits , especially in countries with so little in terms of wealth. It is easier for first world residents (ourselves) to suggest that material goods aren't everything, but for countries that have a significant portion of their population making less than $1 a day it would seem somewhat counterintuitive. (There are a number of other relationships related to health and crime rates relating to a per capita country's GDP).

You are going to have to do a ****ing lot better of that to show that increases in material production under current circumstances in the third world is as good as it could be and dwarfs other benefits and costs completely. You are simply speculating.

As I said it would take many books to get near an accurate appraisal of the situation.

 

[SFLRN]

You are going to have to do a ****ing lot better of that to show that increases in material production under current circumstances in the third world is as good as it could be and dwarfs other benefits and costs completely. You are simply speculating.

You have provided absolutely no evidence on any "non-material" issues in this debate. Your entire argument has been mostly speculation on the other costs. The material benefits, which you admit are positive, are the largest issue and clearly they show that trade is beneficial. The other issues are secondary. Moreover, if one evaluates history then there is certainly a trend where countries that see increased growth can on the whole see more political stability. Jeffery Sachs elaborates on some of this in his book "The End of Poverty." If you could show a significant cost outside of material gains then your argument would have some grounding. However, as of now your argument that there are "other issues" that could possibly outweigh the benefits of free trade is simple supposition.
You began by saying that the benefits of free trade were "hyperbole." That was proven empirically incorrect.