US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Freedom meams people are free to do what they want. You can't say freetrade can only happen under your ideal conditions. That isn't freetrade anymore as you just imposed universal restrictions on that freedom.
Freetrade is ultimately allowing people a choice were the buy the stuff they consume and allowing competition. Ideally American manufacturers should stick a flag on their product and the buyer should decide if they want the patriotic steel that give his neighbour a job or does he want the cheap Chinese stuff made with child labour.

You missed out a critical part:
Freedom means that people are free to do what they want, provided they don't interfere with other people's freedoms.

The restrictions that apply to everyone are there to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules. The game simply does not exist without the rules.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
33,193
You missed out a critical part:
Freedom means that people are free to do what they want, provided they don't interfere with other people's freedoms.

The restrictions that apply to everyone are there to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules. The game simply does not exist without the rules.

Okay I'll agree to the bold bit you added. The the second part isn't completely correct.

Not everyone is even interested in playing your game with the rules you set. Someone else can play a different game or play with a different rule set without completely breaking the game.
Some people like rugby as we know it. Some like sewens the Australians has their own league nonsense the Americans got it completely messed up with their football.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
You missed out a critical part:
Freedom means that people are free to do what they want, provided they don't interfere with other people's freedoms.

The restrictions that apply to everyone are there to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules. The game simply does not exist without the rules.
But restrictions aren't applied universally. Each country has its own idea of what the best set of rules look like, and each country for the most part is not in control of what rules other countries choose to adopt for themselves. It's all fine and well to pretend that we're one humanity and that everyone's in it so that we can all win together, but the reality is much more bleak. In reality, countries can and do engage in predatory economic activity that threatens the national security of other countries.

If rules have to be in place before the game can be played, then something needs to ensure that the rules remain in place. Ultimately that responsibility falls to the state. You seem to be applying a libertarian ideal with respect to the state that no real state could ever hope to satisfy. Just because we agree that unfettered trading would be a good thing doesn't mean that I'm going to demand that we all leave our doors unlocked at night on the grounds that it improves market access. It may sound paradoxical, but there really are times when restrictions serve to increase the real freedom experienced by individuals. Erecting trade barriers to ensure that the economic activity that individuals engage in ultimately serves the national interest is one of the ways that restrictions ultimately afford individuals superior freedom, like locking my door at night helps to secure my freedom to enjoy my stuff.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Citation needed.
China, funnily enough.
In China today, poverty refers mainly to the rural poor, as decades of economic growth has largely eradicated urban poverty.[1][2][3] The dramatic progress in reducing poverty over the past three decades in China is well known. According to the World Bank, more than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China’s poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6.5 percent in 2012, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.[4]

Since the start of far-reaching economic reforms in the late 1970s, growth has fueled a remarkable increase in per capita income helping to lift more people out of poverty than anywhere else in the world: its per capita income has increased fivefold between 1990 and 2000, from $200 to $1,000. Between 2000 and 2010, per capita income also rose by the same rate, from $1,000 to $5,000, moving China into the ranks of middle-income countries. Between 1990 and 2005, China’s progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and a big factor in why the world reached the UN millennium development goal of halving extreme poverty. This incredible success was delivered by a combination of a rapidly expanding labour market, driven by a protracted period of economic growth, and a series of government transfers such as an urban subsidy, and the introduction of a rural pension.[5] Independent studies by Gallup indicate the poverty rate in China fell from 26% in 2007 to 7% by 2012,[6] although World Bank extrapolations suggest that the percentage of the population living below the international poverty line continued to fall to 4.1 percent in 2014.[4] As of 2018 the number of people in poverty living below the national poverty line is around 30 million, about 2% of the population.[7] With hopes of totally eradicating poverty by 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

As opposed to the private corporations and individuals, you act like they are infinitely better when its clear they are not.
You have a choice with private individuals corporations. You, by definition don't when you have a state.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
But restrictions aren't applied universally. Each country has its own idea of what the best set of rules look like, and each country for the most part is not in control of what rules other countries choose to adopt for themselves. It's all fine and well to pretend that we're one humanity and that everyone's in it so that we can all win together, but the reality is much more bleak. In reality, countries can and do engage in predatory economic activity that threatens the national security of other countries.

They don't need to be universally applied in order for the system to work. This is why you leave it up to free trade deals where you flesh out the specifics between each country. I don't want the complete uniformity. Using trade deals sands the extremist edge cases that no-one wants to deal with right off the map.

If rules have to be in place before the game can be played, then something needs to ensure that the rules remain in place. Ultimately that responsibility falls to the state. You seem to be applying a libertarian ideal with respect to the state that no real state could ever hope to satisfy.
Did you even read what I wrote?

The only support the government needs to provide is to create a pro-business environment for companies to grow. Things like property rights and low taxation are things that foster economic competition.

The only thing government should really be doing is making sure that when there is international competition, it that it is fair competition. So if South Africa has a minimum wage and labour laws, it should only allow free trade between countries that have some sort of similar policies. That is actual free trade. Countries that don't follow these basic guidelines can trade, but they have a tariff to compensate for their exploitative practices. Else wise, South Africa should ditch the labour laws for that sector of the economy.

Governments have a tendency to prop up industries that are really badly run or inefficient. You just have to look at South Africa's state owned companies and the absolute wastage in the US arms industry. This is the reason why government should not be a pillar of the economy as they cannot change in the right way to meet the demands of the market. They either change too slowly or they change too fast as both are politically expedient.

As for the thing that ensures the rules are played fairly. Those are are called well defended borders.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,915
China, funnily enough.

China does not have a free market because their government plays games with their currency and heavily controls their economy.

Yup ok thanks

You have a choice with private individuals corporations. You, by definition don't when you have a state.

Firstly there is something called voting, secondly there is many cases where you don't in fact have a choice with the private market.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Oh ok, so you brought him up because you agree with him then.
No.

If you want fair wages and all those wonderful things that increase the cost of labor, you have to balance that with something like a tariff on countries that exploit their workers or directly subsidise their industries (*cough* Europe *cough*). Else wise you will simply kill your local industries.

You want one, you have to have the other. That is the economic argument, and that is pretty much incontestable.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
33,193
No.

If you want fair wages and all those wonderful things that increase the cost of labor, you have to balance that with something like a tariff on countries that exploit their workers or directly subsidise their industries (*cough* Europe *cough*). Else wise you will simply kill your local industries.

You want one, you have to have the other. That is the economic argument, and that is pretty much incontestable.
This is exactly what Trump is doing. And it has to be unilateral otherwise China can just use Canada as a middle man and the US still lose. You can't be specific, either you protect the local industry or you don't.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Yup ok thanks
They are not mutually contradictory concepts. China took a large step towards economic freedom with their reforms. This resulted in reducing poverty. Are they economically free ? No.
Firstly there is something called voting, secondly there is many cases where you don't in fact have a choice with the private market.
Voting only happens every 4 years in government, in the private sector it happens with every transaction. And what is more is that the voting is done by parties relevant to the industry

Secondly, you have even less choice in government as you don't even control the revenue stream.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
This is exactly what Trump is doing. And it has to be unilateral otherwise China can just use Canada as a middle man and the US still lose. You can't be specific, either you protect the local industry or you don't.
This is exactly what Trump is doing.
Which is why I only have a problem with the implementation. I don't have a problem with the tariffs in principle.

And it has to be unilateral otherwise China can just use Canada as a middle man and the US still lose. You can't be specific, either you protect the local industry or you don't.
Do you think middle man services are free? They effectively act as a trade tariff.

The line between ensuring free trade and using government monopoly to prop up your local industry is very thin. A tariff based on the principles of free trade leans towards the former, whilst a unilateral tariff leans towards the latter.

If the US cannot compete with steel from lets say Sweden, then their industry deserves to suffer.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
They don't need to be universally applied in order for the system to work. This is why you leave it up to free trade deals where you flesh out the specifics between each country. I don't want the complete uniformity. Using trade deals sands the extremist edge cases that no-one wants to deal with right off the map.
But you need to have buy in from everyone regarding the free trade agreement or you run into legal nightmares like multiple free trade agreements. For example, Canada is in NAFTA and the TPP, and America is in NAFTA but not in the TPP. It may well be that the particular deals that Canada has with TPP members does nothing to their economy that would cause it to self-destruct, but the lack of controls within the economy could allow products to continue on into America via NAFTA that causes the Americans headaches which they never agreed to. This was exactly the same conflict that happened between Russia and the EU over Ukraine when Ukraine wanted to join the EU trading zone.

So I guess the question I'm asking is, how do you solve the EU/Ukraine/Russia dispute in such a way that it works out equitably for everyone?

Did you even read what I wrote?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but free trade in this particular instance implies that the government does not exercise any control with respect to the goods that come over the border. You say this is good because it maximises individual choices, and presumably you're arguing that this improves aggregate wealth.

My issue is that real world experience has shown that these problems aren't as straightforward as you make them out to be, and maybe I'm out of line characterising it as libertarian, but the way you assume the problem isn't a problem so long as the state doesn't interfere and then don't describe what a solution to the problem should look like is pretty much how libertarians generally treat the state with respect to the economy.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
Which is why I only have a problem with the implementation. I don't have a problem with the tariffs in principle.

The line between ensuring free trade and using government monopoly to prop up your local industry is very thin. A tariff based on the principles of free trade leans towards the former, whilst a unilateral tariff leans towards the latter.

If the US cannot compete with steel from lets say Sweden, then their industry deserves to suffer.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969572374977839106

When a country Taxes our products coming in at, say, 50%, and we Tax the same product coming into our country at ZERO, not fair or smart. We will soon be starting RECIPROCAL TAXES so that we will charge the same thing as they charge us. $800 Billion Trade Deficit-have no choice!
I think I see where the disconnect lies. I don't believe that the tariffs will be universal in nature.
 

Hamish McPanji

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
42,084

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
But you need to have buy in from everyone regarding the free trade agreement or you run into legal nightmares like multiple free trade agreements. For example, Canada is in NAFTA and the TPP, and America is in NAFTA but not in the TPP. It may well be that the particular deals that Canada has with TPP members does nothing to their economy that would cause it to self-destruct, but the lack of controls within the economy could allow products to continue on into America via NAFTA that causes the Americans headaches which they never agreed to. This was exactly the same conflict that happened between Russia and the EU over Ukraine when Ukraine wanted to join the EU trading zone.
.
Who said international trade had to be simple? Sometimes those free trade agreements do more harm than having multiple free trade agreement.

So I guess the question I'm asking is, how do you solve the EU/Ukraine/Russia dispute in such a way that it works out equitably for everyone?
Ukraine and the EU must remain trading partners. Ukraine joining the EU borg is what was on the backburner. Which is why Russia got involved.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but free trade in this particular instance implies that the government does not exercise any control with respect to the goods that come over the border. You say this is good because it maximises individual choices, and presumably you're arguing that this improves aggregate wealth.

My issue is that real world experience has shown that these problems aren't as straightforward as you make them out to be, and maybe I'm out of line characterising it as libertarian, but the way you assume the problem isn't a problem so long as the state doesn't interfere and then don't describe what a solution to the problem should look like is pretty much how libertarians generally treat the state with respect to the economy.

I didn't say that the government shouldn't get involved. What I am saying is that the government should only get involved when the players are not playing by the same rules.

As for state interference in the local economy, it is something to be avoided as much as possible. Governments already have a monopoly of force, they don't need the monopoly of economic power as well.

So for example, I don't have a problem with a government preferring a local manufacturer for police weapons. But where I start draw the line is when the government becomes a provider of goods instead of a consumer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top