In Defence of Globalisation: Free Trade or Neo-liberalism?

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,056
A-land and B-land are two countries, and each has two industries making Gadgets and Widgets for their home markets.

Gadgets and widgets (mobile phones? cars?) were developed by small entrepreneurs for their local markets, and gradually the market has extended over both countries. Both countries have market size N of potential customers for both gadgets and widgets.

A-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

B-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

Both markets are limited by tariffs from selling into the other countries. But one day someone had a brainwave - eliminate the tariffs and let all the gadgets by made by A-land, and the widgets by B-land

So A&B-lands Market Size

Gadgets (made in A-land) 2N
Widgets (made in B-Land) 2N

Now the gadgets and widgets are made by only a small cluster of large companies in each country, so competition keeps prices low and prevents a monopoly. Economics of scale apply, costs are low, so consumers are happy. There is money for R&D and innovation. Wages grow, feed-in jobs grow, service industries (entertainment, hospitality, tourism, fashion, retail) and business remains stable in both countries. The countries integrate their economies, and it is jaw-jaw not war-war.

But there are downsides. Because of the economies, jobs making widgets in Country A, and gadgets in Country B, have disappeared. There is dislocation and discontent until things re-adjust. Some skilled workers emigrate and follow their jobs, a bit resentfully, and some others resent their arrival. The old mode of small local factories with local owners and foremen had been replaced by a corporate elite in a distant city.

But things do readjust and most people find jobs in other industries like services. A generation later and the two economies are prosperous and the people reasonably content.

[This is more of less the case for Free Trade, that of Adam Smith over 200 years ago. The textbook case was the British Corn Laws where tariffs on corn kept bread prices high for the new urban poor of the Industrial Revolution but allowed British farmers to compete with foreign corn from the US. Eliminating the Corn Laws eased the plight of the poor, and forced British agriculture to diversify.]

Hard though it may be to accept, this economic regime has been one of humanity's great successes, while it is not Utopian. Billions of people have risen from poverty, death rates have fallen, population growth rate has fallen - NOW is actually the best era in world history to be born. Literacy, education, personal freedom, personal liberty have larger scope than ever. No sh*t.



Free-trade and free-market liberalism are often confused with neo-liberalism, which is a pernicious doctrine first enunciated in the Reagan-Thatcher era, and still very strong. Neo-liberalism sacrifices everything on the altar of money (such as personal freedom and the environment). It argues that if everyone maximises their personal wealth, with the ability to do so identified with liberty, all will gain through the competitive interaction of a totally unregulated market. In practice, it justifies monopolies, sell-off of publicly-owned assets to the highest bidder, gross tax avoidance and evasion, even violence and revolution.

There is a similarity with Free-Trade Liberalism where A-land and B-land maximise their potential in a limited area, to their mutual benefit, rather than compete in more than one where they going be frustrated. However, neo-liberalism is much wider in scope, enshrines beggar-my-neighbour as justified, bringing it to a personal level, and overlapping with libertarianism.

Neo-liberalism led to the banking crisis and the stuttering recovery. There is a worldwide reaction against it, often the rhetoric misses neo-liberalism and hits Free Trade. Donald Trump is clearly a neo-liberal, a man who paid no taxes, and who greeted the 2008 housing crisis as an opportunity for profit. Nigel Farage, a stockbroker, seems not really to be addressing neo-liberalism, only immigration.

The risk is, in my opinion, is that we will throw out the Free Trade baby with the neo-liberal bathwater and end up worse than we are. Some neo-liberals will be using the disaffection as an opportunity for personal gain. After all, the prototype neoliberal authoritarian was Auguste Pinochet of Chile, a right-wing dictator.
 


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Typically arrantly demented strawman

A fake bogeyman of "neoliberalism" is created ... and our hero owedtojoy , can of course rescue us, using authoritarian methods

owedtojoy , just like Trump, Putin, and Hiding Behind his Poos, is an information terrorist that engages in extreme mendacity in an attempt to be given power

cyp
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
A-land and B-land are two countries, and each has two industries making Gadgets and Widgets for their home markets.

Gadgets and widgets (mobile phones? cars?) were developed by small entrepreneurs for their local markets, and gradually the market has extended over both countries. Both countries have market size N of potential customers for both gadgets and widgets.

A-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

B-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

Both markets are limited by tariffs from selling into the other countries. But one day someone had a brainwave - eliminate the tariffs and let all the gadgets by made by A-land, and the widgets by B-land

So A&B-lands Market Size

Gadgets (made in A-land) 2N
Widgets (made in B-Land) 2N

Now the gadgets and widgets are made by only a small cluster of large companies in each country, so competition keeps prices low and prevents a monopoly. Economics of scale apply, costs are low, so consumers are happy. There is money for R&D and innovation. Wages grow, feed-in jobs grow, service industries (entertainment, hospitality, tourism, fashion, retail) and business remains stable in both countries. The countries integrate their economies, and it is jaw-jaw not war-war.

But there are downsides. Because of the economies, jobs making widgets in Country A, and gadgets in Country B, have disappeared. There is dislocation and discontent until things re-adjust. Some skilled workers emigrate and follow their jobs, a bit resentfully, and some others resent their arrival. The old mode of small local factories with local owners and foremen had been replaced by a corporate elite in a distant city.

But things do readjust and most people find jobs in other industries like services. A generation later and the two economies are prosperous and the people reasonably content.

[This is more of less the case for Free Trade, that of Adam Smith over 200 years ago. The textbook case was the British Corn Laws where tariffs on corn kept bread prices high for the new urban poor of the Industrial Revolution but allowed British farmers to compete with foreign corn from the US. Eliminating the Corn Laws eased the plight of the poor, and forced British agriculture to diversify.]

Hard though it may be to accept, this economic regime has been one of humanity's great successes, while it is not Utopian. Billions of people have risen from poverty, death rates have fallen, population growth rate has fallen - NOW is actually the best era in world history to be born. Literacy, education, personal freedom, personal liberty have larger scope than ever. No sh*t.



Free-trade and free-market liberalism are often confused with neo-liberalism, which is a pernicious doctrine first enunciated in the Reagan-Thatcher era, and still very strong. Neo-liberalism sacrifices everything on the altar of money (such as personal freedom and the environment). It argues that if everyone maximises their personal wealth, with the ability to do so identified with liberty, all will gain through the competitive interaction of a totally unregulated market. In practice, it justifies monopolies, sell-off of publicly-owned assets to the highest bidder, gross tax avoidance and evasion, even violence and revolution.

There is a similarity with Free-Trade Liberalism where A-land and B-land maximise their potential in a limited area, to their mutual benefit, rather than compete in more than one where they going be frustrated. However, neo-liberalism is much wider in scope, enshrines beggar-my-neighbour as justified, bringing it to a personal level, and overlapping with libertarianism.

Neo-liberalism led to the banking crisis and the stuttering recovery. There is a worldwide reaction against it, often the rhetoric misses neo-liberalism and hits Free Trade. Donald Trump is clearly a neo-liberal, a man who paid no taxes, and who greeted the 2008 housing crisis as an opportunity for profit. Nigel Farage, a stockbroker, seems not really to be addressing neo-liberalism, only immigration.

The risk is, in my opinion, is that we will throw out the Free Trade baby with the neo-liberal bathwater and end up worse than we are. Some neo-liberals will be using the disaffection as an opportunity for personal gain. After all, the prototype neoliberal authoritarian was Auguste Pinochet of Chile, a right-wing dictator.
Good post, but a question - do things adjust always? What about towns that simply die, is that part of the price to be paid? Also where does immigration fit in - these new service industries you refer to are unlikely to go the bother of taking on and training the ex-skilled widget makers, and are more likely to take on young educated and flexible immigrants, whom they can pay less?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,880
Hard though it may be to accept, this economic regime has been one of humanity's great successes, while it is not Utopian. Billions of people have risen from poverty, death rates have fallen, population growth rate has fallen - NOW is actually the best era in world history to be born. Literacy, education, personal freedom, personal liberty have larger scope than ever. No sh*t.
The fact that X is better than Y is a reason to reject Y, not Z.

Perhaps things would be even better than they are at present were we to adopt different economic policies (like abolishing capitalism, for example).
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Typically arrantly demented strawman

A fake bogeyman of "neoliberalism" is created ... and our hero owedtojoy , can of course rescue us, using authoritarian methods

owedtojoy , just like Trump, Putin, and Hiding Behind his Poos, is an information terrorist that engages in extreme mendacity in an attempt to be given power

cyp

Im giving that a like, Boss, because there is something called neo-Liberalism, but it aint the farrago that owedtojuicing has
presented in his pathetic attempt to refight the US Election.

Im so over the half-educated shills throwing round phrases they barely understand.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,490
A-land and B-land are two countries, and each has two industries making Gadgets and Widgets for their home markets.

Gadgets and widgets (mobile phones? cars?) were developed by small entrepreneurs for their local markets, and gradually the market has extended over both countries. Both countries have market size N of potential customers for both gadgets and widgets.

A-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

B-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

Both markets are limited by tariffs from selling into the other countries. But one day someone had a brainwave - eliminate the tariffs and let all the gadgets by made by A-land, and the widgets by B-land

So A&B-lands Market Size

Gadgets (made in A-land) 2N
Widgets (made in B-Land) 2N

Now the gadgets and widgets are made by only a small cluster of large companies in each country, so competition keeps prices low and prevents a monopoly. Economics of scale apply, costs are low, so consumers are happy. There is money for R&D and innovation. Wages grow, feed-in jobs grow, service industries (entertainment, hospitality, tourism, fashion, retail) and business remains stable in both countries. The countries integrate their economies, and it is jaw-jaw not war-war.

But there are downsides. Because of the economies, jobs making widgets in Country A, and gadgets in Country B, have disappeared. There is dislocation and discontent until things re-adjust. Some skilled workers emigrate and follow their jobs, a bit resentfully, and some others resent their arrival. The old mode of small local factories with local owners and foremen had been replaced by a corporate elite in a distant city.

But things do readjust and most people find jobs in other industries like services. A generation later and the two economies are prosperous and the people reasonably content.

[This is more of less the case for Free Trade, that of Adam Smith over 200 years ago. The textbook case was the British Corn Laws where tariffs on corn kept bread prices high for the new urban poor of the Industrial Revolution but allowed British farmers to compete with foreign corn from the US. Eliminating the Corn Laws eased the plight of the poor, and forced British agriculture to diversify.]

Hard though it may be to accept, this economic regime has been one of humanity's great successes, while it is not Utopian. Billions of people have risen from poverty, death rates have fallen, population growth rate has fallen - NOW is actually the best era in world history to be born. Literacy, education, personal freedom, personal liberty have larger scope than ever. No sh*t.



Free-trade and free-market liberalism are often confused with neo-liberalism, which is a pernicious doctrine first enunciated in the Reagan-Thatcher era, and still very strong. Neo-liberalism sacrifices everything on the altar of money (such as personal freedom and the environment). It argues that if everyone maximises their personal wealth, with the ability to do so identified with liberty, all will gain through the competitive interaction of a totally unregulated market. In practice, it justifies monopolies, sell-off of publicly-owned assets to the highest bidder, gross tax avoidance and evasion, even violence and revolution.

There is a similarity with Free-Trade Liberalism where A-land and B-land maximise their potential in a limited area, to their mutual benefit, rather than compete in more than one where they going be frustrated. However, neo-liberalism is much wider in scope, enshrines beggar-my-neighbour as justified, bringing it to a personal level, and overlapping with libertarianism.

Neo-liberalism led to the banking crisis and the stuttering recovery. There is a worldwide reaction against it, often the rhetoric misses neo-liberalism and hits Free Trade. Donald Trump is clearly a neo-liberal, a man who paid no taxes, and who greeted the 2008 housing crisis as an opportunity for profit. Nigel Farage, a stockbroker, seems not really to be addressing neo-liberalism, only immigration.

The risk is, in my opinion, is that we will throw out the Free Trade baby with the neo-liberal bathwater and end up worse than we are. Some neo-liberals will be using the disaffection as an opportunity for personal gain. After all, the prototype neoliberal authoritarian was Auguste Pinochet of Chile, a right-wing dictator.
Globalisation, free trade and liberalism are not mutually exclusive, there is no reason why liberal societies could not trade freely without having to integrate world views and cultures.
 

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
A-land and B-land are two countries, and each has two industries making Gadgets and Widgets for their home markets.

Gadgets and widgets (mobile phones? cars?) were developed by small entrepreneurs for their local markets, and gradually the market has extended over both countries. Both countries have market size N of potential customers for both gadgets and widgets.

A-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

B-land Market Size

Gadgets N
Widgets N

Both markets are limited by tariffs from selling into the other countries. But one day someone had a brainwave - eliminate the tariffs and let all the gadgets by made by A-land, and the widgets by B-land

So A&B-lands Market Size

Gadgets (made in A-land) 2N
Widgets (made in B-Land) 2N

Now the gadgets and widgets are made by only a small cluster of large companies in each country, so competition keeps prices low and prevents a monopoly. Economics of scale apply, costs are low, so consumers are happy. There is money for R&D and innovation. Wages grow, feed-in jobs grow, service industries (entertainment, hospitality, tourism, fashion, retail) and business remains stable in both countries. The countries integrate their economies, and it is jaw-jaw not war-war.

But there are downsides. Because of the economies, jobs making widgets in Country A, and gadgets in Country B, have disappeared. There is dislocation and discontent until things re-adjust. Some skilled workers emigrate and follow their jobs, a bit resentfully, and some others resent their arrival. The old mode of small local factories with local owners and foremen had been replaced by a corporate elite in a distant city.

But things do readjust and most people find jobs in other industries like services. A generation later and the two economies are prosperous and the people reasonably content.

[This is more of less the case for Free Trade, that of Adam Smith over 200 years ago. The textbook case was the British Corn Laws where tariffs on corn kept bread prices high for the new urban poor of the Industrial Revolution but allowed British farmers to compete with foreign corn from the US. Eliminating the Corn Laws eased the plight of the poor, and forced British agriculture to diversify.]

Hard though it may be to accept, this economic regime has been one of humanity's great successes, while it is not Utopian. Billions of people have risen from poverty, death rates have fallen, population growth rate has fallen - NOW is actually the best era in world history to be born. Literacy, education, personal freedom, personal liberty have larger scope than ever. No sh*t.



Free-trade and free-market liberalism are often confused with neo-liberalism, which is a pernicious doctrine first enunciated in the Reagan-Thatcher era, and still very strong. Neo-liberalism sacrifices everything on the altar of money (such as personal freedom and the environment). It argues that if everyone maximises their personal wealth, with the ability to do so identified with liberty, all will gain through the competitive interaction of a totally unregulated market. In practice, it justifies monopolies, sell-off of publicly-owned assets to the highest bidder, gross tax avoidance and evasion, even violence and revolution.

There is a similarity with Free-Trade Liberalism where A-land and B-land maximise their potential in a limited area, to their mutual benefit, rather than compete in more than one where they going be frustrated. However, neo-liberalism is much wider in scope, enshrines beggar-my-neighbour as justified, bringing it to a personal level, and overlapping with libertarianism.

Neo-liberalism led to the banking crisis and the stuttering recovery. There is a worldwide reaction against it, often the rhetoric misses neo-liberalism and hits Free Trade. Donald Trump is clearly a neo-liberal, a man who paid no taxes, and who greeted the 2008 housing crisis as an opportunity for profit. Nigel Farage, a stockbroker, seems not really to be addressing neo-liberalism, only immigration.

The risk is, in my opinion, is that we will throw out the Free Trade baby with the neo-liberal bathwater and end up worse than we are. Some neo-liberals will be using the disaffection as an opportunity for personal gain. After all, the prototype neoliberal authoritarian was Auguste Pinochet of Chile, a right-wing dictator.
This is an exposition on why trade works. However it's not an exposition on how that wealth gets distributed. More wealth and more concentration of that wealth is the problem. Opposing the populist right by defending the agenda of the neo liberal order is to miss the point massively.
Stepping in and defeating that neo liberal order is the only way to improve people's lives and incidentally to defeat the populist right. The point is to improve people's lives. It is not to defeat the popular right. There is a difference you know. The former will have you oppose both the populist right and neo liberals; the latter will have you side with the neo-liberals and defend their program as a tactic to defeat the right.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,114
At the time of Brexit, I heard it explained that we in Ireland have gained from free trade as we had no industrial base and have a greater proportion of our population educated enough to be able to adapt to modern industry, so when we lose an industry to the far east, its often replaced by higher paid service jobs. The contrast was with the north of England where well paying industrial jobs, employing people with less education, hence less adaptable, were replaced with lower paying service jobs. No matter what govts do, even if they were to slap on tarrifs and start to build steel plants, it would be years before they come online so no use to those who were displaced.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,653
How much sugar will Ireland sell next year in this great global market?
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Im giving that a like, Boss, because there is something called neo-Liberalism, but it aint the farrago that owedtojuicing has
presented in his pathetic attempt to refight the US Election.

Im so over the half-educated shills throwing round phrases they barely understand.
There is problematic elements that hide out on the Right, as the Left

Neoliberalism is not a well defined concept - in the sense that there is no clear common defintion

Information terrorists like Owedtojoy, prey in such murk ... in order to foist their own agendas on weaker people

Sure Owedtojoy is a highr grade Information Terrorist that Hiding Behing his Poos ... and a different hue to boot ... but an IT none the less

cyp
 
D

Deleted member 42179

Free trade is Utopian nonsense.
If it ever exists at all, it is for only the briefest time.

Once business gets big enough, the logical thing to do to maximise profits is to rig the game, which is exactly what they all try to do. And given the frailty of human morals, they inevitably succeed. Once the game is rigged, the lovely over simplistic models with their so called "rational actors" (hah!) all break down and become even more useless at prediction than they were before. And we end up inevitably on a road to plutocracy, which is where we are now.

After a few decades of ever decreasing slices of the pie for the 99%, the precariat eventually get so pissed off they want to throw a monkey wrench into the increasingly corrupted oppressive system they live under in order to burn it to the ground in the only way they have left to do so. So en masse they vote for a Trump or a Brexit or a Marine Le Pen.

If you base a society on individualism and personal greed then there is really nothing stopping this process. Only a re emphasis on human needs over profits and personal greed and a restructuring of society both mentally and physically towards more communal forms of thinking to achieve this goal can result in a different outcome IMHO.

People need to value their environment, their family life, their community, their free time, in order to be motivated enough to fight for them and defend them from the predations of sociopaths. Globalisation is all about stealing everything people have, impoverishing them and setting everyone against one another thus destroying their ability to resist predatory actions. So called "representative democracies" are merely a tyranny of the stupid and uninformed and are easily hijacked. Unless there is a move towards more direct forms of democracy or decentralised power and communal mutually beneficial behaviour then we are all heading towards the abyss as a huge and very destructive failed experiment and our poor stewardship of this rock will be predictably short.

F*ck "free trade" and f*ck globalisation.
It's the wrong way forward for the human species and for that matter, for all the other unfortunate species we will inevitably destroy too.

We need to always keep asking the obvious questions:
"Why exactly do we have an economy?"
"why exactly do we have a society?".
IMHO The answer is "to help people to attain at least the basic requirements they have to live". When we lose sight of the whole point, we are then lost. And under our current "every rat for himself" system we clearly are as regards most of the humans on our planet, to the clear benefit of a very few.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,653
If corporations become superior to national governments; then they become sovereign entities in their own right. What is to stop these entities settling disputes by violent means(war)?
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
At the time of Brexit, I heard it explained that we in Ireland have gained from free trade as we had no industrial base and have a greater proportion of our population educated enough to be able to adapt to modern industry, so when we lose an industry to the far east, its often replaced by higher paid service jobs. The contrast was with the north of England where well paying industrial jobs, employing people with less education, hence less adaptable, were replaced with lower paying service jobs. No matter what govts do, even if they were to slap on tarrifs and start to build steel plants, it would be years before they come online so no use to those who were displaced.
Yep - often wondered in situations like this, is there no way that governments can effectively force the new service industries in question to take on and retrain the former industrial workers? (As opposed to taking young non-locals/immigrants which is probably what they do).
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
There is problematic elements that hide out on the Right, as the Left

Neoliberalism is not a well defined concept - in the sense that there is no clear common defintion

Information terrorists like Owedtojoy, prey in such murk ... in order to foist their own agendas on weaker people

Sure Owedtojoy is a highr grade Information Terrorist that Hiding Behing his Poos ... and a different hue to boot ... but an IT none the less

cyp
There is only no clear common definition because Information Terrorists like owedtojuicing have made sure that Neo-Liberalism is just another phrase which stands for something my candidate wouldnt approve of, because apparently its not nice.

The reality is we know how it works. Use the apparatus of intergovernmental relations eg the EU to foist binding treaties on weaker parties that allows the dominant one to flood their markets and prevents them from exercising domestic control over their own economic policies. NAFTA. TTP. TTIP.

It is the opposite of classical Free Trade, which c18 Liberals like yourself would support. Its a protection racket.

And one which has been pushed to blazes by the cuddly, progressive, peoples-people, the Dems in the US.
 

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
There is only no clear common definition because Information Terrorists like owedtojuicing have made sure that Neo-Liberalism is just another phrase which stands for something my candidate wouldnt approve of, because apparently its not nice.

The reality is we know how it works. Use the apparatus of intergovernmental relations eg the EU to foist binding treaties on weaker parties that allows the dominant one to flood their markets and prevents them from exercising domestic control over their own economic policies. NAFTA. TTP. TTIP.

It is the opposite of classical Free Trade, which c18 Liberals like yourself would support. Its a protection racket.

And one which has been pushed to blazes by the cuddly, progressive, peoples-people, the Dems in the US.
Are you saying that the positive cuddly people who shafted Bernie Sanders and ensured Hillary was the Democratic candidate are actually entirely comfortable with the globalizing neo liberal agenda which hates sharing the wealth.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,653
That answer to that question would be zero.
So, why is the answer to that question zero?

Could it be that incompetent Irish politicians negotiated treaties that left their successors no choice but to shut down Irish Sugar?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Are you saying that the positive cuddly people who shafted Bernie Sanders and ensured Hillary was the Democratic candidate are actually entirely comfortable with the globalizing neo liberal agenda which hates sharing the wealth.
Darling, Im saying they're ************************s.

And Special Snowflakes from US universities, weeping because the candidate of bombs, drones and pay-day loans didnt make it to the White House are dumber than the poor red-necks, with their bad teeth and macaroni-cheese-filled bellies who at least turned out to say "Gissa a job - I can do that."
 

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
5,995
Twitter
crimesofbrits
All of the historical and empirical evidence is against so-called 'free trade'. America, Japan*, Britain, South Korea**, Germany and France all built up their countries with the opposite of free trade. Many of the mentioned, forced countries into trade deals in which they weren't allowed raise tariffs, whilst the rich countries kept their tariffs.

Essentially, the same kind of deals were done during the Uruguay rounds and so on. The so-called 'bad old days' for the third world countries, weren't really that bad, when they had growth rates outstripping the industrial revolution, for example, using tariffs and protectionism and following the 11 point plan by Alexander Hamilton that America was built on essentially.

Anyone who argues for globalization and free trade in its current form is an absolute scumbag. And Owed is a scumbag who will defend US imperialism at all costs.

*Much to the annoyance of the yanks
**Much to the annoyance of the yanks



And, a very good quote backs up the hypocrisy of the Brits, for example:

‘For centuries England relied on protection, carried it to extremes, and got good results from it . . . . England has found it desirable to adopt free trade because protection no longer offers advantages.
'Very well, gentlemen, the knowledge that I have of my own country leads me to believe that within two hundred years, when America has gotten all that she can from protection, she too will adopt free trade’
US President Grant
 

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
5,995
Twitter
crimesofbrits
Adam Smith believed that America should have, along with Poland, kept to agriculture and not tried to industrialize. I think they made the right decision having state capitalism. Also, Smith wasn't a true free trader.

The IMF and WB and western 'capitalists' wouldn't give money to Korea to build their country up from within by kicking out foreigners, starting industries and protecting 'industries in their infancy', interfering with private companies and forcing them into certain fields. They went from exporting fish and wigs to what they are now against all of the so-called 'free trade' 'economists'. I think they made the right deal.

Good aul Britain, promoting free trade, by stating things such as not even America should be able to produce a nail:

‘Even more recently, namely, in 1770, the great Chatham, made uneasy by the first manufacturing attempts of the New Englanders, declared that the colonies should not be permitted to manufacture so much as a horseshoe nail.'
List, The National System of Political Economy, Book I, Chapter 9 | Library of Economics and Liberty
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top