Free Trade or Fair Trade?

Why would I even bother? If you want people to have a proper discussion, it involves you having one first.
Post No. 1- What do you advocate for? Personally, I prefer Free trade- free = unencumbered.

Post No. 4 -
Depends on the definition of Fair- to be really, truly Fair, Free trade has to be the answer- otherwise Fair is skewed, by fiat, to favor one over another- Free is defined as unencumbered. "Negotiations" as mentioned by the other poster is where the problems arise. Negotiations lead to compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise when it's the participants negotiating a compromise- but, when an outsider (representative) pretends to have some sort of not granted authority to compromise on someone else's behalf the skewing begins and tends to lead to running amok favoring a better, or differently resourced, co-representative (campaign donor in our case)-

So, to answer your question; No. Not in the sense that Fair must be negotiated by an outsider-

Post No.5 - Gdjjr, there's a lot out there RE> free vs fair trade

Post No. 6 -
Which? Or both? The "official" trade policy is called what?

A Black Market is Free trade- is there a lot of it? Or just some? Is that Fair? Depends on the "official" definition-
If "official" it is not Free- "official" entails approved by someone other than the participants- is that Fair?
Official has become synonymous for; approved by...... another.

Free Trade requires Free Market- if regulated, or official, it becomes not Fair, as regulating has become something other than understood at our outset- remember, free is unencumbered-

Post No. 10- As a businessman it’s both IMO. If we buy potatoes from France at a certain price but France instead of buying our tomatoes buys them from China then I ll buy my potatoes from Spain. France and the US is free to do was they will but there should be some cooperation IMO.

response to Post No. 10 : Post No. 13- As a business man you determine what is fair, not a gov't rife with corruption (which is ALL gov't's) - which requires co-operation (consensus between seller and producer)- not interference or control from one who feels they have the right, or authority, to tell you what country's potatoes to buy- gov't's don't produce products (potatoes or tomatoes) or services (pickers to markets) for products-

Post No. 11-
No one is forced to deal with anyone. .
You're reference is to that evil communist empire, China.
It's doesn't matter if the economy is controlled. You buy from anyone and in reverse if the price is right. That's free trade.
Subsidies to produce the item is America's biggest problem because of the export enhancement programme and subsidies to farmers. So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
Forget about blaming Chinese which is what your implying.

Post No. 12 -
But it does matter when considering free trade- by definition, controlled, is encumbered- the "controlled" by the country is still controlled- controls always favor the best/different resourced- that isn't free trade-

and

Not really- if the price is right is in large part determined by who sets the price which has to reflect the cost to get the price "right"- the better/different resourced who can use the "controlled" to their advantage will win the price war-

and

So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
I do- and it ain't free trade- which is the why I asked the question in the first place-

Post No. 16 -

Free trade is great as long as the people you are trading with don't use child labor or trafficked people to produce their goods.
That is your choice to make by being dilegent in your research - not the gov't's or the press, both who have an agenda, usually political, and isn't to help you- sweatshops and child labor are pretty much a thing of the past (which the US also had and plenty of products were produced with both right under our collective noses)- trafficking usually involves prostitution-


Post No. 17

BUT, I do not think that either China OR the EU are willing to allow it.
Maybe, maybe not- but, the choice should be yours to make- not the gov't's-

The US is Israels bitch- so what's the difference? Bitch is bitch- correct?


Post No. 18


Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence

Post No. 19

Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence
IDC- it doesn't change what I said one iota- it is NOT a gov't's job, especially our gov't to determine who you, as an individual, trade with- nor does it prove the press/media, or the gov't, don't have a political agenda- which is THE difference between you ( or me or anyone else) trading with whom we want to- for whatever reason we choose to participate or not participate-


There is an entire thread you should read, is the point- if you can, is another point-

 
What do you advocate for? Personally, I prefer Free trade- free = unencumbered.

Free Trade Is Fair Trade

Instead of condemning free trade outright, many modern American opponents of free trade say that they have nothing against free trade as long as it is fair trade. That is true in the case of both liberals and conservatives.
They aren't mutually exclusive, Their is no free trade without fair trade. The very nature of our economy is built on trust. We enter into contract and those contracts depend on both parties honoring those contracts. That doesn't happen without the enforcement of those contracts by law. We purchase a product and expect it to be in the condition as advertises. And for the greatest part it is. If all contracts were broken, our court system would be overwhelmed. But that we have that system ensures that we can trust contracts will be honored. There is the problems of monopolies, which tend to form naturally. Monopolies are by their nature the opposite of free trade. The very nature of free trade requires competition and competition required a statistically large number of competitors. Market leverage, market power, unfair business practices, guarantee that the markets will spiral down into something that simply isn't free trade.

Free trade simply doesn't exist on it's own, not in the real world, not for long. Over 200 years of the American economics had demonstrated that. There is a reason that our economic system has evolved to the way it is. It has evolved out of trial and error and is still evolving, a tweak here, a tweak there, all of it getting closer and closer to a more perfect market.
 
Why would I even bother? If you want people to have a proper discussion, it involves you having one first.
Post No. 1- What do you advocate for? Personally, I prefer Free trade- free = unencumbered.

Post No. 4 -
Depends on the definition of Fair- to be really, truly Fair, Free trade has to be the answer- otherwise Fair is skewed, by fiat, to favor one over another- Free is defined as unencumbered. "Negotiations" as mentioned by the other poster is where the problems arise. Negotiations lead to compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise when it's the participants negotiating a compromise- but, when an outsider (representative) pretends to have some sort of not granted authority to compromise on someone else's behalf the skewing begins and tends to lead to running amok favoring a better, or differently resourced, co-representative (campaign donor in our case)-

So, to answer your question; No. Not in the sense that Fair must be negotiated by an outsider-

Post No.5 - Gdjjr, there's a lot out there RE> free vs fair trade

Post No. 6 -
Which? Or both? The "official" trade policy is called what?

A Black Market is Free trade- is there a lot of it? Or just some? Is that Fair? Depends on the "official" definition-
If "official" it is not Free- "official" entails approved by someone other than the participants- is that Fair?
Official has become synonymous for; approved by...... another.

Free Trade requires Free Market- if regulated, or official, it becomes not Fair, as regulating has become something other than understood at our outset- remember, free is unencumbered-

Post No. 10- As a businessman it’s both IMO. If we buy potatoes from France at a certain price but France instead of buying our tomatoes buys them from China then I ll buy my potatoes from Spain. France and the US is free to do was they will but there should be some cooperation IMO.

response to Post No. 10 : Post No. 13- As a business man you determine what is fair, not a gov't rife with corruption (which is ALL gov't's) - which requires co-operation (consensus between seller and producer)- not interference or control from one who feels they have the right, or authority, to tell you what country's potatoes to buy- gov't's don't produce products (potatoes or tomatoes) or services (pickers to markets) for products-

Post No. 11-
No one is forced to deal with anyone. .
You're reference is to that evil communist empire, China.
It's doesn't matter if the economy is controlled. You buy from anyone and in reverse if the price is right. That's free trade.
Subsidies to produce the item is America's biggest problem because of the export enhancement programme and subsidies to farmers. So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
Forget about blaming Chinese which is what your implying.

Post No. 12 -
But it does matter when considering free trade- by definition, controlled, is encumbered- the "controlled" by the country is still controlled- controls always favor the best/different resourced- that isn't free trade-

and

Not really- if the price is right is in large part determined by who sets the price which has to reflect the cost to get the price "right"- the better/different resourced who can use the "controlled" to their advantage will win the price war-

and

So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
I do- and it ain't free trade- which is the why I asked the question in the first place-

Post No. 16 -

Free trade is great as long as the people you are trading with don't use child labor or trafficked people to produce their goods.
That is your choice to make by being dilegent in your research - not the gov't's or the press, both who have an agenda, usually political, and isn't to help you- sweatshops and child labor are pretty much a thing of the past (which the US also had and plenty of products were produced with both right under our collective noses)- trafficking usually involves prostitution-


Post No. 17

BUT, I do not think that either China OR the EU are willing to allow it.
Maybe, maybe not- but, the choice should be yours to make- not the gov't's-

The US is Israels bitch- so what's the difference? Bitch is bitch- correct?


Post No. 18


Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence

Post No. 19

Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence
IDC- it doesn't change what I said one iota- it is NOT a gov't's job, especially our gov't to determine who you, as an individual, trade with- nor does it prove the press/media, or the gov't, don't have a political agenda- which is THE difference between you ( or me or anyone else) trading with whom we want to- for whatever reason we choose to participate or not participate-


There is an entire thread you should read, is the point- if you can, is another point-


I'm not pro-free trade or pro-fair trade. Mostly because I don't trust these terminology.

It's like -isms, I just can get behind one, because if you stick to something, then you let that dictate how you function rather than going for the best option in every circumstance.

Free trade is great when the two bodies trading are equal. Like first world nations, like the EU. It works great, a lot of those countries have much better trade now than they did when they joined.

Fair trade is something that is abused by richer nations. I mistrust the terminology.

The problem with businessmen deciding what is "fair", a big multinational will decide "fair" is a massive advantage in their favor because they have the power to do so.

I think the UK might have done a deal with the Ivory Coast. The United Kingdom and Côte d’Ivoire sign Economic Partnership Agreement

As far as I understand it, and I might be wrong, the Ivory Coast has free trade with the UK, but the UK has limited trade with the Ivory Coast. It's fair because the Ivory Coast is a poorer country. The UK doesn't need to send aid to the Ivory Coast because the people are enriching themselves.

It also targets bananas and cocoa trade, which are the areas the Ivory Coast is most going to benefit from.
 
How many cows is your daughter worth?
It would appear to be the case that human trafficking is part of 'free' trade.

In answer to your question - you don't have enough.

I don't have any.

But I did have this conversation in Lusaka with some girl, I told her we don't do this in the west. She might have just been humoring me, I'm not sure. But in the past, and even in places like Africa and China dowries are present at weddings.
 
Why would I even bother? If you want people to have a proper discussion, it involves you having one first.
Post No. 1- What do you advocate for? Personally, I prefer Free trade- free = unencumbered.

Post No. 4 -
Depends on the definition of Fair- to be really, truly Fair, Free trade has to be the answer- otherwise Fair is skewed, by fiat, to favor one over another- Free is defined as unencumbered. "Negotiations" as mentioned by the other poster is where the problems arise. Negotiations lead to compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise when it's the participants negotiating a compromise- but, when an outsider (representative) pretends to have some sort of not granted authority to compromise on someone else's behalf the skewing begins and tends to lead to running amok favoring a better, or differently resourced, co-representative (campaign donor in our case)-

So, to answer your question; No. Not in the sense that Fair must be negotiated by an outsider-

Post No.5 - Gdjjr, there's a lot out there RE> free vs fair trade

Post No. 6 -
Which? Or both? The "official" trade policy is called what?

A Black Market is Free trade- is there a lot of it? Or just some? Is that Fair? Depends on the "official" definition-
If "official" it is not Free- "official" entails approved by someone other than the participants- is that Fair?
Official has become synonymous for; approved by...... another.

Free Trade requires Free Market- if regulated, or official, it becomes not Fair, as regulating has become something other than understood at our outset- remember, free is unencumbered-

Post No. 10- As a businessman it’s both IMO. If we buy potatoes from France at a certain price but France instead of buying our tomatoes buys them from China then I ll buy my potatoes from Spain. France and the US is free to do was they will but there should be some cooperation IMO.

response to Post No. 10 : Post No. 13- As a business man you determine what is fair, not a gov't rife with corruption (which is ALL gov't's) - which requires co-operation (consensus between seller and producer)- not interference or control from one who feels they have the right, or authority, to tell you what country's potatoes to buy- gov't's don't produce products (potatoes or tomatoes) or services (pickers to markets) for products-

Post No. 11-
No one is forced to deal with anyone. .
You're reference is to that evil communist empire, China.
It's doesn't matter if the economy is controlled. You buy from anyone and in reverse if the price is right. That's free trade.
Subsidies to produce the item is America's biggest problem because of the export enhancement programme and subsidies to farmers. So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
Forget about blaming Chinese which is what your implying.

Post No. 12 -
But it does matter when considering free trade- by definition, controlled, is encumbered- the "controlled" by the country is still controlled- controls always favor the best/different resourced- that isn't free trade-

and

Not really- if the price is right is in large part determined by who sets the price which has to reflect the cost to get the price "right"- the better/different resourced who can use the "controlled" to their advantage will win the price war-

and

So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
I do- and it ain't free trade- which is the why I asked the question in the first place-

Post No. 16 -

Free trade is great as long as the people you are trading with don't use child labor or trafficked people to produce their goods.
That is your choice to make by being dilegent in your research - not the gov't's or the press, both who have an agenda, usually political, and isn't to help you- sweatshops and child labor are pretty much a thing of the past (which the US also had and plenty of products were produced with both right under our collective noses)- trafficking usually involves prostitution-


Post No. 17

BUT, I do not think that either China OR the EU are willing to allow it.
Maybe, maybe not- but, the choice should be yours to make- not the gov't's-

The US is Israels bitch- so what's the difference? Bitch is bitch- correct?


Post No. 18


Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence

Post No. 19

Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence
IDC- it doesn't change what I said one iota- it is NOT a gov't's job, especially our gov't to determine who you, as an individual, trade with- nor does it prove the press/media, or the gov't, don't have a political agenda- which is THE difference between you ( or me or anyone else) trading with whom we want to- for whatever reason we choose to participate or not participate-


There is an entire thread you should read, is the point- if you can, is another point-


I'm not pro-free trade or pro-fair trade. Mostly because I don't trust these terminology.

It's like -isms, I just can get behind one, because if you stick to something, then you let that dictate how you function rather than going for the best option in every circumstance.

Free trade is great when the two bodies trading are equal. Like first world nations, like the EU. It works great, a lot of those countries have much better trade now than they did when they joined.

Fair trade is something that is abused by richer nations. I mistrust the terminology.

The problem with businessmen deciding what is "fair", a big multinational will decide "fair" is a massive advantage in their favor because they have the power to do so.

I think the UK might have done a deal with the Ivory Coast. The United Kingdom and Côte d’Ivoire sign Economic Partnership Agreement

As far as I understand it, and I might be wrong, the Ivory Coast has free trade with the UK, but the UK has limited trade with the Ivory Coast. It's fair because the Ivory Coast is a poorer country. The UK doesn't need to send aid to the Ivory Coast because the people are enriching themselves.

It also targets bananas and cocoa trade, which are the areas the Ivory Coast is most going to benefit from.
Free is unencumbered. Period. When someone not involved as a participant imposes rules it is no longer free- a gov't, no matter where it's home, restricts free- restricting, by definition, isn't free- restrictions come in many forms, ostensibly, to promote fair- in our case.

I can't speak to the UK, but I do know we fought a war to get out from under it's thumb, due to trade "rules"/restrictions- our gov't wasn't granted the authority to restrict trade by individuals for that very reason- but, it does. Rules always favor one side or another- when rules are made law criminals are created- no ifs ands or buts about it.

Fair is when involved participants reach an agreement on a trade- when rules (laws) create a higher cost *a* participant is restricted- when rules (laws) favor the better resourced, who wins? In our case, the fed reserve, since they provide a currency for barter that is not free, but is quite costly, i.e., taxes- which further restrict participants- it is a vicious circle, referred to as "fair"- but, is it? Not really- it is controlled by other than participants- officials- who are bought and paid for to favor better resourced providers and consumers- this Country, the US, the gov't's (local or national) produce nothing to trade with- so, why does it get to set the rules that always favor the better resourced?

Our so-called, "representatives" do not adhere to their oath of allegiance to the constitution. Their saving grace, if there is one, is the words, "to the best of my ability"- the constitution was written to help ensure one didn't have a legal leg up on another, thus, representation by district- so, instead they insure that participation is restricted to the better resourced, by restricting participation to "we the people" as individuals- using pork (stolen resources, taxes) to buy largess for military/gov't contracts- a vicious circle- who wins? The controller.
 
Why would I even bother? If you want people to have a proper discussion, it involves you having one first.
Post No. 1- What do you advocate for? Personally, I prefer Free trade- free = unencumbered.

Post No. 4 -
Depends on the definition of Fair- to be really, truly Fair, Free trade has to be the answer- otherwise Fair is skewed, by fiat, to favor one over another- Free is defined as unencumbered. "Negotiations" as mentioned by the other poster is where the problems arise. Negotiations lead to compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise when it's the participants negotiating a compromise- but, when an outsider (representative) pretends to have some sort of not granted authority to compromise on someone else's behalf the skewing begins and tends to lead to running amok favoring a better, or differently resourced, co-representative (campaign donor in our case)-

So, to answer your question; No. Not in the sense that Fair must be negotiated by an outsider-

Post No.5 - Gdjjr, there's a lot out there RE> free vs fair trade

Post No. 6 -
Which? Or both? The "official" trade policy is called what?

A Black Market is Free trade- is there a lot of it? Or just some? Is that Fair? Depends on the "official" definition-
If "official" it is not Free- "official" entails approved by someone other than the participants- is that Fair?
Official has become synonymous for; approved by...... another.

Free Trade requires Free Market- if regulated, or official, it becomes not Fair, as regulating has become something other than understood at our outset- remember, free is unencumbered-

Post No. 10- As a businessman it’s both IMO. If we buy potatoes from France at a certain price but France instead of buying our tomatoes buys them from China then I ll buy my potatoes from Spain. France and the US is free to do was they will but there should be some cooperation IMO.

response to Post No. 10 : Post No. 13- As a business man you determine what is fair, not a gov't rife with corruption (which is ALL gov't's) - which requires co-operation (consensus between seller and producer)- not interference or control from one who feels they have the right, or authority, to tell you what country's potatoes to buy- gov't's don't produce products (potatoes or tomatoes) or services (pickers to markets) for products-

Post No. 11-
No one is forced to deal with anyone. .
You're reference is to that evil communist empire, China.
It's doesn't matter if the economy is controlled. You buy from anyone and in reverse if the price is right. That's free trade.
Subsidies to produce the item is America's biggest problem because of the export enhancement programme and subsidies to farmers. So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
Forget about blaming Chinese which is what your implying.

Post No. 12 -
But it does matter when considering free trade- by definition, controlled, is encumbered- the "controlled" by the country is still controlled- controls always favor the best/different resourced- that isn't free trade-

and

Not really- if the price is right is in large part determined by who sets the price which has to reflect the cost to get the price "right"- the better/different resourced who can use the "controlled" to their advantage will win the price war-

and

So if your talking about government interference, check out what's happening in the country first.
I do- and it ain't free trade- which is the why I asked the question in the first place-

Post No. 16 -

Free trade is great as long as the people you are trading with don't use child labor or trafficked people to produce their goods.
That is your choice to make by being dilegent in your research - not the gov't's or the press, both who have an agenda, usually political, and isn't to help you- sweatshops and child labor are pretty much a thing of the past (which the US also had and plenty of products were produced with both right under our collective noses)- trafficking usually involves prostitution-


Post No. 17

BUT, I do not think that either China OR the EU are willing to allow it.
Maybe, maybe not- but, the choice should be yours to make- not the gov't's-

The US is Israels bitch- so what's the difference? Bitch is bitch- correct?


Post No. 18


Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence

Post No. 19

Seems to me you need to do your own due diligence
IDC- it doesn't change what I said one iota- it is NOT a gov't's job, especially our gov't to determine who you, as an individual, trade with- nor does it prove the press/media, or the gov't, don't have a political agenda- which is THE difference between you ( or me or anyone else) trading with whom we want to- for whatever reason we choose to participate or not participate-


There is an entire thread you should read, is the point- if you can, is another point-


I'm not pro-free trade or pro-fair trade. Mostly because I don't trust these terminology.

It's like -isms, I just can get behind one, because if you stick to something, then you let that dictate how you function rather than going for the best option in every circumstance.

Free trade is great when the two bodies trading are equal. Like first world nations, like the EU. It works great, a lot of those countries have much better trade now than they did when they joined.

Fair trade is something that is abused by richer nations. I mistrust the terminology.

The problem with businessmen deciding what is "fair", a big multinational will decide "fair" is a massive advantage in their favor because they have the power to do so.

I think the UK might have done a deal with the Ivory Coast. The United Kingdom and Côte d’Ivoire sign Economic Partnership Agreement

As far as I understand it, and I might be wrong, the Ivory Coast has free trade with the UK, but the UK has limited trade with the Ivory Coast. It's fair because the Ivory Coast is a poorer country. The UK doesn't need to send aid to the Ivory Coast because the people are enriching themselves.

It also targets bananas and cocoa trade, which are the areas the Ivory Coast is most going to benefit from.
Free is unencumbered. Period. When someone not involved as a participant imposes rules it is no longer free- a gov't, no matter where it's home, restricts free- restricting, by definition, isn't free- restrictions come in many forms, ostensibly, to promote fair- in our case.

I can't speak to the UK, but I do know we fought a war to get out from under it's thumb, due to trade "rules"/restrictions- our gov't wasn't granted the authority to restrict trade by individuals for that very reason- but, it does. Rules always favor one side or another- when rules are made law criminals are created- no ifs ands or buts about it.

Fair is when involved participants reach an agreement on a trade- when rules (laws) create a higher cost *a* participant is restricted- when rules (laws) favor the better resourced, who wins? In our case, the fed reserve, since they provide a currency for barter that is not free, but is quite costly, i.e., taxes- which further restrict participants- it is a vicious circle, referred to as "fair"- but, is it? Not really- it is controlled by other than participants- officials- who are bought and paid for to favor better resourced providers and consumers- this Country, the US, the gov't's (local or national) produce nothing to trade with- so, why does it get to set the rules that always favor the better resourced?

Our so-called, "representatives" do not adhere to their oath of allegiance to the constitution. Their saving grace, if there is one, is the words, "to the best of my ability"- the constitution was written to help ensure one didn't have a legal leg up on another, thus, representation by district- so, instead they insure that participation is restricted to the better resourced, by restricting participation to "we the people" as individuals- using pork (stolen resources, taxes) to buy largess for military/gov't contracts- a vicious circle- who wins? The controller.

Free trade is unencumbered by governments. The problem is that it destroys smaller countries. The multinationals move in and act like they own the place.

Fair trade is usually not fair.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top