Protectionism

[antagon]

The world grew rich under free trade, not mercantilism. You don't understand economic history.

17th century western mercantilism cultivated an economy around production much like asia today. i argue that these western countries now cultivate their economies around consumption through the same sort of heavy-handed management which is entailed in classical mercantilism. developed, post-industrial consumer economies have not come about by way of free trade any more than mercantile wealth had.

in extreme examples like the UK, as i had referred to earlier, the role of the state is every bit as pronounced as the mercantile policy there was 300 years prior. in this way, stacking domestic economic factors in deference to consumption as is consistent in every developed economy is not free trade or any product directly arising from it.

free trade has remained fairly constant, while economic policies have shifted their preference from consumption control to production control.

It depends what you mean, I guess. I don't see the state as being active as being necessarily mercantilist. In most developed economies, the state is 30%-50% of the economy. Most of that is used to spend on wealth transference policies and infrastructure spending. Does high welfare interfere with the labour market? Is road building an interference with the free market? Is this mercantilism?

I view such questions as rhetorical. The state steps in to provide insurance, to redistribute wealth based on societal preferences, where markets fail and where markets don't fail but political power is used to redistribute wealth based on privilege, access to power and skewed political arrangements. Is Sweden mercantilist? I'd say no. The country has an elaborate welfare and entitlement system funded by high taxes on income and consumption but is a free trading nation which is friendly to capital. That to me is not mercantilism.

i dont mean to say that consumer economies are mercantilist. i mean to say that markets were not free in the western merc era and they weren't free anytime thereafter. a similar weight of government policy directed the economy toward more robust consumption. the idea that fetters were loosened is not supported by history.

 

[Toro]

i dont mean to say that consumer economies are mercantilist. i mean to say that markets were not free in the western merc era and they weren't free anytime thereafter. a similar weight of government policy directed the economy toward more robust consumption. the idea that fetters were loosened is not supported by history.

Its a matter of degree. There has never been a pure free market in modern history and there has never been pure communism. This allows the purist ideologues on either extreme of the political spectrum to say that their ideologies haven't failed because they've never really been tried.

Instead, one must look at the broad sweep of history. After WWII, when GATT was formed, the average tariff on a good traded was ~40%. Today, it is less than 10%. Yes, in multi-lateral trade negotiations, some barriers were maintained at the behest of powerful political interests. But for the most part, the world has continued to open up.

 

[Toro]

i'd agree that there are several labor markets. i was trying to get at that in my point 3. your broader point is taken that some labor markets are adapted to certain demands and that others are not. where free market philosophy prescribes that economies will flourish from allowing market functions such as this determine the bases of economies, i argue that country's policies should be geared to the interests of their constituents. external to free market philosophy is the fact that labor markets are not as flexible as consumption and production markets, particularly markets for 'entry-level', low efficiency, labor intensive production in which china debuted a couple decades ago. where this translates to policy, is the onus of governments to temper the flexibility of trade to that less-flexible nature of the labor market.

additionally, because i am of the opinion that the consumption basis or production basis of national economies are determined by policy, i argue that these policies must be directed at an economic balance which can exploit the factors - particularly human factors - which exist within the borders of the country, foremost. where a country fails to do so, the economy is that much less efficient, since importing goods which can be produced within the capacity of the labor market makes no sense either. developed economies supplement the consumption capability of a labor market operating under the foregone conclusion that they should relinquish production to these 'more fit' economies. the result of that is a welfare state sucking at a financial services (for example) sector which marginally utilizes the labor market... my criticism of the UK... again. where's the efficiency there, at a macroeconomic level?

I don't necessarily disagree with your first paragraph. This is why adjustment periods are often implemented in new free trade agreements so the internal markets can adjust. I'm not necessarily against support by national governments for the displaced. Taxes on those who have benefited the most to fund retraining is such an example. However, labour markets are highly adjustable over time. For example, a quarter of all job categories at the BLS did not even exist 40 years ago.

As to your second paragraph, economies must continue to adapt and offer what is demanded. That doesn't mean relinquishing production to anyone. What it means is that a high-cost, low-productivity economy cannot maintain its relative standard of living indefinitely, and the productive capacity has to adapt to new markets. I don't know of any society that has continued to grow and prosper while its industries have been in terminal decline. It is true that trade does not benefit every single person on the planet. On the other hand, erecting barriers and hiding behind those walls doesn't forestall the inevitable either.

 

[antagon]

i dont mean to say that consumer economies are mercantilist. i mean to say that markets were not free in the western merc era and they weren't free anytime thereafter. a similar weight of government policy directed the economy toward more robust consumption. the idea that fetters were loosened is not supported by history.

Its a matter of degree. There has never been a pure free market in modern history and there has never been pure communism. This allows the purist ideologues on either extreme of the political spectrum to say that their ideologies haven't failed because they've never really been tried.

Instead, one must look at the broad sweep of history. After WWII, when GATT was formed, the average tariff on a good traded was ~40%. Today, it is less than 10%. Yes, in multi-lateral trade negotiations, some barriers were maintained at the behest of powerful political interests. But for the most part, the world has continued to open up.

yes, toro, but what about the degree of control on the production side -- every bit as heavy-handed as the tariffs which controlled the freedom of trade on the consumption side of the equation. social welfare, labor laws shrinking working hours and fixing the costs. conservation of regulation.

 

[Sheldon]

I see "isolationism" misused all the time, you don't want to be intervening in other people's business does not mean you want to isolate yourself from the world.

I have not followed "protectionism" as closely but ;imho; the term "free trade" gets misused quite often.

A common (false) criticism of Ron Paul and libertarians in general that I see is "he's an isolationist". You're right, there's a big difference between isolationism--which, by definition, includes protectionism; Ron Paul is for freer trade--and military non-interventionism.

I think nations with shared economic interests are more likely to resolve their political and social differences through peaceful means; money runs the world, and politicians exploit nationalism for power.

I'm pretty sure a Toyota assembled in Kentucky has the same percentage of American-made parts as a Ford assembled in Michigan. "Be American; buy Toyota".

 

[loosecannon]

Of course it is whenever it is viewed statically.

And protons are static if that's how you want to view them.

But you would be wrong.

Of course I have, I have annihilated your feeble arguments.

If by that you mean bluster, rants, opinions and nothing demonstrating empirical causality, then yes, I'm sure in your own mind you've annihilated my arguments.

You just don't get it.

The economy IS a zero sum game when you view it in any given moment.

any promise of further riches and wealth not realized in the moment is just a fantasy.

every time you hear somebody who thinks they are bright mumble something stupid like "the economy is not a zero sum game" just point at them and laugh.

Because in every single moment that ever has occurred, is occurring or will occur the economy is indeed a zero sum game.

That's reality, welcome to it.



And I have annihilated your arguments. You just don't see the forest for the trees. Nobody can fix that but you.

 

[Toro]

Of course it is whenever it is viewed statically.

And protons are static if that's how you want to view them.

But you would be wrong.

Of course I have, I have annihilated your feeble arguments.

If by that you mean bluster, rants, opinions and nothing demonstrating empirical causality, then yes, I'm sure in your own mind you've annihilated my arguments.

You just don't get it.

The economy IS a zero sum game when you view it in any given moment.

any promise of further riches and wealth not realized in the moment is just a fantasy.

every time you hear somebody who thinks they are bright mumble something stupid like "the economy is not a zero sum game" just point at them and laugh.

Because in every single moment that ever has occurred, is occurring or will occur the economy is indeed a zero sum game.

That's reality, welcome to it.



And I have annihilated your arguments. You just don't see the forest for the trees. Nobody can fix that but you.

That's not the reality. That's ridiculous. The economy is dynamic, not static, since it operates in a continuum of time. Educated people know this.

 

[loosecannon]

That's not the reality. That's ridiculous. The economy is dynamic, not static, since it operates in a continuum of time. Educated people know this.

That's absurd. Time is merely an illusion. Even Einstein couldn't define it. Nobody can except as an abstract.

In any given moment the economy and all things are static, finite, period.

Any assumption of greater wealth in the future is irrational.

 

[loosecannon]

Time has been defined as the continuum in which events occur in succession from the past to the present and on to the future.[1] Time has also been defined as a one-dimensional quantity[2] used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with other quantities such as space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes.[3] Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days). Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toro]

That's not the reality. That's ridiculous. The economy is dynamic, not static, since it operates in a continuum of time. Educated people know this.

That's absurd. Time is merely an illusion. Even Einstein couldn't define it. Nobody can except as an abstract.

In any given moment the economy and all things are static, finite, period.

Any assumption of greater wealth in the future is irrational.

Ah, an Arts student ...

 

[Sheldon]

That's not the reality. That's ridiculous. The economy is dynamic, not static, since it operates in a continuum of time. Educated people know this.

That's absurd. Time is merely an illusion. Even Einstein couldn't define it. Nobody can except as an abstract.

In any given moment the economy and all things are static, finite, period.

Any assumption of greater wealth in the future is irrational.

Ah, an Arts student ...

Oh yeah? Well you're one of them un-American Canadians who uses charts and facts and an MBA education, and stuff.

 

[Toro]

That's absurd. Time is merely an illusion. Even Einstein couldn't define it. Nobody can except as an abstract.

In any given moment the economy and all things are static, finite, period.

Any assumption of greater wealth in the future is irrational.

Ah, an Arts student ...

Oh yeah? Well you're one of them un-American Canadians who uses charts and facts and an MBA education, and stuff.

I know. I'm sorry.

 

[loosecannon]

That's not the reality. That's ridiculous. The economy is dynamic, not static, since it operates in a continuum of time. Educated people know this.

That's absurd. Time is merely an illusion. Even Einstein couldn't define it. Nobody can except as an abstract.

In any given moment the economy and all things are static, finite, period.

Any assumption of greater wealth in the future is irrational.

Ah, an Arts student ...

ah, one of those dweebs who thinks economics is a science.

Sorry charlie, wealth is static and finite in every given moment. Any assumption of wealth creation in the future is irrational.

It's like bartering your life's labor for "promisory notes".

It may work well for a while, but it won't end well. Of that you can be certain.

 

[loosecannon]

Oh yeah? Well you're one of them un-American Canadians who uses facts and stuff.

actually Toro is challenged to identify a fact even if it bites him. That's kind of the theme of the dialogue.

 

[Sheldon]

Oh yeah? Well you're one of them un-American Canadians who uses facts and stuff.

actually Toro is challenged to identify a fact even if it bites him. That's kind of the theme of the dialogue.

uh, no. You've brought nothing to this thread but slobber and an over-inflated ego as some anemic attempt to counter a dispassionate argument grounded in accepted data.

btw, did you ever come up with a response in that "Jews are a fake race" thread? I'm still waiting for you to show me how I'm full of shit. I have to go but i'll log in later tonight to see whatever anti-semitic frothing you manage to come up with.

 

[Toro]

That's absurd. Time is merely an illusion. Even Einstein couldn't define it. Nobody can except as an abstract.

In any given moment the economy and all things are static, finite, period.

Any assumption of greater wealth in the future is irrational.

Ah, an Arts student ...

ah, one of those dweebs who thinks economics is a science.

Sorry charlie, wealth is static and finite in every given moment. Any assumption of wealth creation in the future is irrational.

It's like bartering your life's labor for "promisory notes".

It may work well for a while, but it won't end well. Of that you can be certain.

Like, working well the last 200 years you mean.

Economics is a social science, but dismissing all statistical analysis of past events is the province of the ideologue impervious to contrary conclusions. It is not to be taken seriously, which is why your argument is not taken seriously.

Oh yeah? Well you're one of them un-American Canadians who uses facts and stuff.

actually Toro is challenged to identify a fact even if it bites him. That's kind of the theme of the dialogue.

No, the challenge is for you to understand what exactly a fact is. Making esoteric arguments amount the nature of time as a rebuttal is pretty funny.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Most countries have minimum wages. It is just the wages are adjusted to the living scale in that country. ROKorea's minimum wage is around $3 per hour. Mexico, last time I checked was about $2.50, Japan is around $8.25, Israel is around $5. In the Philippines, minimum wages vary by province and the type of work. In Manila, minimum wage is around $9, in the rest of the country, around $5.50

 

[antagon]

its been a while since i've been in manila, but i'll be damned if the minimum wage is $9/hr. i would bet it is closer to $9 per day.

 

[antagon]

You just don't get it.

The economy IS a zero sum game when you view it in any given moment.

any promise of further riches and wealth not realized in the moment is just a fantasy.

every time you hear somebody who thinks they are bright mumble something stupid like "the economy is not a zero sum game" just point at them and laugh.

Because in every single moment that ever has occurred, is occurring or will occur the economy is indeed a zero sum game.

That's reality, welcome to it.



And I have annihilated your arguments. You just don't see the forest for the trees. Nobody can fix that but you.

i'd call looking at economics in slices of time a matter of not seeing the forest from the trees. we have to use trends to see how one practice or condition fairs compared to others over a span of time. the most crucial observation is the performance of an economy in terms of produce based on what factors it has available to it, and the propensity for an economy to pursue the exploitation of those factors... over time.

because of these potentials, an economic analysis cant be seen as zero-sum.

 

[shintao]

Actually, there are NO NEW IDEAS -- they've all been tried to one degree or another in past history.

You can have a dog and starve it, or have a dog a feed it well. The two will not turn out as the same dog. And that is the case of capitalism. It should have its chance to stand on it's own two feet without socialist help. Let it stand alone and bust all these rightwing myths of how glorious capitalsim is for the people. Then we can get this nation perking on socialism for and by the people.