FMBI Posted July 30, 2008 Report Posted July 30, 2008 Link Yes, the study was partially funded by unions, but I don't hear anyone complaining when transnats bankroll studies saying free trade is wonderful. Just another fun example of how the ideal of free trade is hampered by pesky little things like reality. Oh, for the glory days when we could send a few frigates and get guaranteed fair trade.
PaRa$iTe Posted July 30, 2008 Report Posted July 30, 2008 The problem with free trade is that it works on a global scale, not a national scale. The people who PAY for stuff still benefit from this - consumers get cheaper goods, and employers get cheaper employees. The world as a whole benefits, but right now, the US fail to hit the crossing point between supply and demand on two different graphs: goods prices and employee salaries. In essence, it works like a company which sells burritos for $50 a piece.
darkhosis Posted July 31, 2008 Report Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Link Yes, the study was partially funded by unions, but I don't hear anyone complaining when transnats bankroll studies saying free trade is wonderful. Just another fun example of how the ideal of free trade is hampered by pesky little things like reality. Oh, for the glory days when we could send a few frigates and get guaranteed fair trade.2.3 million jobs lost, 4.6 million ppl saved from poverty due to lower prices on goods on a side note, i had to call microsoft activation center cause i changed my hardware and needed another activation code and got some !@#$%^&* indian guy i couldnt even understand. after 10 minutes i finally sed fuk this and let me talk to someone else, and got an indian guy that spoke a little better english. Edited July 31, 2008 by darkhosis
FMBI Posted August 1, 2008 Author Report Posted August 1, 2008 Ah, but the "lower wages + even lower prices = good" theory falls short in situations where you can't export poverty anymore. China's rising wages, the semi-recession, and our flat wages (despite tremendous productivity growth in recent years) have all made it more expensive to import, and without a compensating rise in wages, you end up in a situation where your cash runs out all too quickly. While pushing wages ahead of productivity results in inflation, allowing them to lag behind and then making up for it by sucking in the low-priced junk of the rest of the world can only last so long. At a certain point, your economy's eroded so far that you completely lose economic independence. We've all seen how well that worked for the pseudo-colonies of the early-and-mid 20th century. 90% foreign economic ownership of your economy, 100% political ownership. Forgive me if I sound a bit paranoid, but getting 50% of the world to say that they'd be better off without us, and simultaneously handing them the reins to your future doesn't sound too smart. And also, the "fall in poverty" that you cite seems a little oversimplified to me. Expanded trade with insufficiently mature economies (Africa, Central America, and Thailand come to mind) tends to provoke rapid shifts which throw people off the wagon far more rapidly than in mature economies, which are at least fairly stable in terms of equality. We probably pushed 20 million people into the slums in order to accomplish that 4 million drop. And even after that, I still find it questionable, because the poverty line has barely changed, while the value of the dollar has dropped drastically in recent years.
Recommended Posts