- Registrado
- 4 de Ago, 2023
Im kinda torn on this issue and did not see any threads about it so discuss it
is free trade good or bad?
- Iniciador del tema Saddam Hussain Obama
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 30 de Ene, 2021
2 examples that come to mind.
- Harley Davidson vs Honda where tariffs were introduced to protect HD, this is an example where free trade was abused to protect an incumbent that didn't deserve it.
- Tariffs against China's dumping of steel on the US market, here is an example where Free Trade was bad and the local market needed protecting from a bad operator.
My point is that its a nuanced problem.
- Harley Davidson vs Honda where tariffs were introduced to protect HD, this is an example where free trade was abused to protect an incumbent that didn't deserve it.
- Tariffs against China's dumping of steel on the US market, here is an example where Free Trade was bad and the local market needed protecting from a bad operator.
My point is that its a nuanced problem.
Magicicada_septendecula
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 29 de Nov, 2021
Between two countries of relatively similar wealth and living standards, trading things they both need because they each lacks things the other has, it's the ideal trade situation. They'll get stuff they need and compete for quality when it comes to things they both produce.
Between one very rich country and another very poor country, it causes a race to the bottom in the rich country for labor standards and wages for everyone but the top 1%, and encourages exploitation of the people in the poorer country. The rich country gets low-quality cheap goods, loses its own manufacturing base, and the wealth gap and living standards start to resemble that of the poorer country. The poor country gets a marginal bump in living standards and its propaganda will talk about creating a middle class (one that works itself to death) while its environment gets destroyed.
Ultimately, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis and free trade should be with nations most like your own.
Between one very rich country and another very poor country, it causes a race to the bottom in the rich country for labor standards and wages for everyone but the top 1%, and encourages exploitation of the people in the poorer country. The rich country gets low-quality cheap goods, loses its own manufacturing base, and the wealth gap and living standards start to resemble that of the poorer country. The poor country gets a marginal bump in living standards and its propaganda will talk about creating a middle class (one that works itself to death) while its environment gets destroyed.
Ultimately, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis and free trade should be with nations most like your own.
- Registrado
- 24 de Jun, 2020
And unless both countries have agreed-upon rules, one will just take advantage of the other to finance its worst vices.
We thought trading with China would make it a liberal democracy. Instead, we sold our birthright to them for cheap plastic crap. They played us for suckers.
We went from being the envy of the industrialized world to a hollowed-out empire in decline. Free trade is a relic of the Age of Boomers, who cannot look past the next election cycle or earnings period.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 4 de Ago, 2023
these are the arguements i heard they go like this
disadvantages of free trade
hurts the home nations employees/offshores jobs
produces lower quality goods
helps bad nations like china
lowers wage standards in the other country
advantages being
economic benefit
lower prices for goods
helping poorer nations economies
helping realtions with other countries and releaving tension
helping america get leverage over other nations through trade
so its a matter of pros and cons i guess im leaning towards opposing but i also wanna see other arguements
disadvantages of free trade
hurts the home nations employees/offshores jobs
produces lower quality goods
helps bad nations like china
lowers wage standards in the other country
advantages being
economic benefit
lower prices for goods
helping poorer nations economies
helping realtions with other countries and releaving tension
helping america get leverage over other nations through trade
so its a matter of pros and cons i guess im leaning towards opposing but i also wanna see other arguements
Última edición:
Magicicada_septendecula
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 29 de Nov, 2021
It was late when I first posted on this, but I was going to go into currency manipulation and newly developed countries still leveraging international trade rules that are supposed to give developing countries a head start because no one has reclassified them as developed yet.
And, yeah, I remember the "trade will make China a democracy" lie. All it did was what I previously described, plus making us a little more like China, even politically. Some in the environmental movement are stupid enough to still believe a variation on it, that if we make economic sacrifices in our country and trade for green technology (which as a side note, itself is nastier than coal or oil), it will encourage China to do the same.
- Registrado
- 19 de Ene, 2023
Same thing with the import quotas on Japanese vehicles to protect the US automakers. The Big 3 were producing absolute junk in terms of quality (if not outright dangerous like the Pinto) so the quotas actually made Japanese automakers more profitable because people were willing to pay a premium for quality.
Like you said it's nuanced. Tariffs make sense if they level playing field because of actions taken by another country but if they're used to prop up uncompetitive, poor-quality producers they are a net loss.
It's always better to let a failing business go under than attempt to prop it up. This is a big reason why Japan's economy is so moribund.
- Registrado
- 27 de Sep, 2021
Talk about free trade vs protectionism the key thing that needs to be brought up is the context of the situation. For this I will be talking in an american context since every country has a different situation so what might work here would spell doom for an EU state. Ever since unrestricted trade was opened up with the third world this country underwent deindustrialization. First with the start of outsourcing industry to china then some down south to mexico, and finally china being admitted to the WTO and the final nail being put in that coffin for the bulk of the US industry. How many cities around that were once bustling industrial and manufacturing cities back in the day have been reduced to a series of derelict buildings, slums, and all the desolation that comes with being in the ghetto. In turn from this arrangement china's GDP had started to tick up before exploding in the 2000s and it became the largest trade exporter world wide, the 1% and other big earners was able to become all the more wealthy while wages for all other groups stagnated (this point is a myriad of factors like mass migration, women entering the workforce, death of organized labor, and inflationary monetary policies but don't think free trade & outsourcing doesn't have a massive role in this equation), and walmart n jeffbezos-mart now have lots of disposable crap to sell you for dirt cheap.
With outsourcing down south over the border, why dont we take a gander at American automotive, A substantial amount of your big 3 made car likely has close to if not much more than half of its parts made in mexico, oddly enough Japanese automotive manufacturers have higher amounts of car parts used in their American made cars actually made in the US(I would use clear sources but every article I read gives me wildly different numbers so all I could get is a basic gist, t-thanks google) What does this bring the average american? Cars seem to have shorter and shorter lives while they get more and more expensive.
With every major technical breakthrough the new wave of change sweeps over an economy, destroying the old industries & jobs but creating new ones to replace them. An example is the automobile, Yes it destroyed the horse industry and eventually double-teamed passenger railroad with airlines but how many people did henry ford and general motors have to employ to run their factories? Not to mention the industries needed to support cars (oil for gasoline, steel for the cars themselves, ect) and all the new industries that could exist because of the car. Not even mentioning how the automobile changed society as a whole. Advancements in computers & silicon tech brought about a slew of job losses with improved automation, but look at how many jobs in the IT sector were created out of thin air.
However the techboom of the 90s happened alongside the uncontrolled growth of unrestricted free trade, many of these new jobs would have found themselves in offices in india, effectively stealing the old jobs with no replacement for the now obsolete and thrown away section workforce, as for the chips themselves the bulk of all semicoductors world wide are made in Taiwan (we will discuss taiwan later)
All this also brings into question environmentalism. Pollution and environmental rules are needed or else we will absolutely poison the earth, the first world has through great effort put forward the effort in doing so (execution is extremely questionable, shunning nuclear power, the scam of green energy, and a myriad of many other poor attempts to care for the environment) However if you relocate your factory to the third world you can probably completely ignore most if not all the environmental restrictions in the first world! The river also doubles as a dump, your smoke stack doesnt need any kind of filtration, party like its the year 1899! Oh and who can forget the nightmarish pollution that cargo ships generate, when out at sea in international waters you can rape the environment with total impunity. What good do many of these laws and regulations do if you can just setup shop somewhere where there are no rules for pollution, after all your competitor is doing it to cut costs, if you dont you will go bankrupt
The end result of handing china the bulk of our industrial might? We have created what may be the next super power to rival us, we effectively armed the enemy who is currently (and successfully) waging a war of economy against us. We gave up so much for something that only benefits the few elite and puts all else in jeopardy. Spreading out supply chains across the globe (like sending peaches grown in chile to china for processing into fruit cups and then to some other country) has created a delicate balance where any serious disruption can cause major supply issues. During the pandemic we got a taste of a global supply disruption, much of it chronicled in the supply chain thread in the thunderdome. Imagine how bad that would be if there was anything worse than what amounted to a stiff gust of wind during those few years. This is assuming benign actors, with the kerfuffle of china and taiwan what if for the incredibly unlikely reason it went hot, as I said before most of our semiconductors are made there, a loss of those would cause extreme problems, or in europe who foolishly decided to make much of their energy dependent on a combination of god awful "green" energy and supplemented the massive shortfall with russian gas, who is now currently in an energy crisis ever since the ukraine war.
To say though free trade is at all inherently bad is a crude disgusting oversimplification. As others have said, lack of real competition leads to complacency, and how many American industries in pseudo monopolies would immediately become complacent and stagnant if given the opportunity, the free trade enjoyed by EU member states has been a massive boon to their economies (as much as I hate to admit it, brexit has been a disaster through a combination of UKIP not having a real plan and the rest of the British political world being content to not try to establish any type of new trade deal with other nations to make up for leaving the EU). Importing and exporting goods between developed nations is almost always good provided everyone plays by the rules, and import of raw materials and export of finished goods to the not-developed world is a must even for the resource rich US.
My entire beef with free trade has been that every effort has been made since the Pax Americana to export as much industry as possible to the third world to undercut native labour, this alone is more than enough to turn me into a rabid protectionalist, I may be biased because where I live there are numerous places around me that are deindustrialized wastelands, my blue collar family, and getting a rare manufacturing job. What sickens me is ever since 2016 people are now questioning if everything should be in china, ofcourse the solution to this problem was just to outsource the industry to vietnam, india, mexico, ect. This free trade disease refuses to die while the people who lost their employment opportunities are just thrown away as if they were a used iphone, declared obsolete and worthless.
A thought I had writing this, this thread being about free trade and not mass migration but ill break that rule. If you look at labour as being a commodity (well it sorta is really) mass migration is just free trade of labour, the losers being the native population who find their wages undercut by the scab migrants who will work unacceptable conditions for minimal pay. This being one of the many things that effectively killed organized labour power in the US (a thread can be made just on that topic alone), obviously like with outsourcing to the third world the winners in this being the factory owners, wealthy, 1%, ect. Funny how bringing that fact up gets you labeled with
as its perfectly acceptable to beat down the losers of globalization who were left behind and discarded
With outsourcing down south over the border, why dont we take a gander at American automotive, A substantial amount of your big 3 made car likely has close to if not much more than half of its parts made in mexico, oddly enough Japanese automotive manufacturers have higher amounts of car parts used in their American made cars actually made in the US(I would use clear sources but every article I read gives me wildly different numbers so all I could get is a basic gist, t-thanks google) What does this bring the average american? Cars seem to have shorter and shorter lives while they get more and more expensive.
With every major technical breakthrough the new wave of change sweeps over an economy, destroying the old industries & jobs but creating new ones to replace them. An example is the automobile, Yes it destroyed the horse industry and eventually double-teamed passenger railroad with airlines but how many people did henry ford and general motors have to employ to run their factories? Not to mention the industries needed to support cars (oil for gasoline, steel for the cars themselves, ect) and all the new industries that could exist because of the car. Not even mentioning how the automobile changed society as a whole. Advancements in computers & silicon tech brought about a slew of job losses with improved automation, but look at how many jobs in the IT sector were created out of thin air.
All this also brings into question environmentalism. Pollution and environmental rules are needed or else we will absolutely poison the earth, the first world has through great effort put forward the effort in doing so (execution is extremely questionable, shunning nuclear power, the scam of green energy, and a myriad of many other poor attempts to care for the environment) However if you relocate your factory to the third world you can probably completely ignore most if not all the environmental restrictions in the first world! The river also doubles as a dump, your smoke stack doesnt need any kind of filtration, party like its the year 1899! Oh and who can forget the nightmarish pollution that cargo ships generate, when out at sea in international waters you can rape the environment with total impunity. What good do many of these laws and regulations do if you can just setup shop somewhere where there are no rules for pollution, after all your competitor is doing it to cut costs, if you dont you will go bankrupt
The end result of handing china the bulk of our industrial might? We have created what may be the next super power to rival us, we effectively armed the enemy who is currently (and successfully) waging a war of economy against us. We gave up so much for something that only benefits the few elite and puts all else in jeopardy. Spreading out supply chains across the globe (like sending peaches grown in chile to china for processing into fruit cups and then to some other country) has created a delicate balance where any serious disruption can cause major supply issues. During the pandemic we got a taste of a global supply disruption, much of it chronicled in the supply chain thread in the thunderdome. Imagine how bad that would be if there was anything worse than what amounted to a stiff gust of wind during those few years. This is assuming benign actors, with the kerfuffle of china and taiwan what if for the incredibly unlikely reason it went hot, as I said before most of our semiconductors are made there, a loss of those would cause extreme problems, or in europe who foolishly decided to make much of their energy dependent on a combination of god awful "green" energy and supplemented the massive shortfall with russian gas, who is now currently in an energy crisis ever since the ukraine war.
To say though free trade is at all inherently bad is a crude disgusting oversimplification. As others have said, lack of real competition leads to complacency, and how many American industries in pseudo monopolies would immediately become complacent and stagnant if given the opportunity, the free trade enjoyed by EU member states has been a massive boon to their economies (as much as I hate to admit it, brexit has been a disaster through a combination of UKIP not having a real plan and the rest of the British political world being content to not try to establish any type of new trade deal with other nations to make up for leaving the EU). Importing and exporting goods between developed nations is almost always good provided everyone plays by the rules, and import of raw materials and export of finished goods to the not-developed world is a must even for the resource rich US.
My entire beef with free trade has been that every effort has been made since the Pax Americana to export as much industry as possible to the third world to undercut native labour, this alone is more than enough to turn me into a rabid protectionalist, I may be biased because where I live there are numerous places around me that are deindustrialized wastelands, my blue collar family, and getting a rare manufacturing job. What sickens me is ever since 2016 people are now questioning if everything should be in china, ofcourse the solution to this problem was just to outsource the industry to vietnam, india, mexico, ect. This free trade disease refuses to die while the people who lost their employment opportunities are just thrown away as if they were a used iphone, declared obsolete and worthless.
A thought I had writing this, this thread being about free trade and not mass migration but ill break that rule. If you look at labour as being a commodity (well it sorta is really) mass migration is just free trade of labour, the losers being the native population who find their wages undercut by the scab migrants who will work unacceptable conditions for minimal pay. This being one of the many things that effectively killed organized labour power in the US (a thread can be made just on that topic alone), obviously like with outsourcing to the third world the winners in this being the factory owners, wealthy, 1%, ect. Funny how bringing that fact up gets you labeled with
Última edición:
Kankichi Ryotsu
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 17 de Abr, 2022
It's bad. The state should not allow the enrichment of individuals beyond the capabilities of the state, that's how it falls to the hands of oligarchs. Not to mention that being a slave to foreign oligarchs is even worse. Lolberts may cry all they want, but the interests of one's own people come first, not to enrich some foreign merchants just because it's cheaper.