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

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
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."
Then we have to disagree since while you think they are ************************ers it's equally likely they are complete and utter bastards. This is a debate that will go on ...just like their support for neo liberals capable of feeding them sh!t. Thry didn't have the stomach to back Bernie because they were the type of people who were prepared to have a cry in when their opponents bested them.
Sanders will need to build a base of people whose first reaction to defeat is not to make that defeat all about themselves and have a cry and Instagram moment.
 


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Then we have to disagree since while you think they are ************************ers it's equally likely they are complete and utter bastards. This is a debate that will go on ...just like their support for neo liberals capable of feeding them sh!t. Thry didn't have the stomach to back Bernie because they were the type of people who were prepared to have a cry in when their opponents bested them.
Sanders will need to build a base of people whose first reaction to defeat is not to make that defeat all about themselves and have a cry and Instagram moment.

Thats because they are "progressives". They are not the Left.

The Old Left was born to march towards the sound of gunfire.

"Dont mourn -organise."
 

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
Thats because they are "progressives". They are not the Left.

The Old Left was born to march towards the sound of gunfire.

"Dont mourn -organise."
The left today still would. The pseudo progressives who make every struggle about their response and their feelings clearly wouldn't since they are in the first instance not left wing, and in the second instance would ve so busy live tweeting their experiences and emotions that any revolution they were involved with would quickly be finished.
Sanders needs to tell them to stop being such losers cause Trump won't be challenged by emotional incontinents but by people who actually opposed neo liberalism.
 

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
Thats because they are "progressives". They are not the Left.

The Old Left was born to march towards the sound of gunfire.

"Dont mourn -organise."
The left today still would. The pseudo progressives who make every struggle about their response and their feelings clearly wouldn't since they are in the first instance not left wing, and in the second instance would ve so busy live tweeting their experiences and emotions that any revolution they were involved with would quickly be finished.
Sanders needs to tell them to stop being such losers cause Trump won't be challenged by emotional incontinents but by people who actually oppose neo liberalism.

Joe hill didn't say first have a good cry and don't be embarrassed by that and when you feel safe you should organize provided that you feel up to it and that you have a group of like minded people who value your emotions and support you.
 

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
This is what real socialists are saying about the election while the snowflakes roll around crying.

The Militant - November 21, 2016 -- Election reflects effects on workers of capitalist crisis

'Election reflects effects on workers of capitalist crisis

BY MAGGIE TROWE
After confidently predicting that Democrat Hillary Clinton would take the presidency Nov. 8 and heaping scorn on workers who turned out to hear her challenger Republican Donald Trump, big sections of the propertied rulers and their media outlets, pollsters and pundits were stunned by Trump’s victory.
The outcome came as no surprise, however, to millions of workers tarred as “deplorables” by Clinton. “‘Deplorables’ Rise Up to Reshape America,” read a Wall Street Journal headline hours after the election.

Millions of workers have grown frustrated and angry by the impact of years of smoldering depression conditions on their lives and refusal of any party in Washington to do anything about it. They don’t buy President Barack Obama’s assurances, echoed by Clinton, that “America’s economy is not just better than it was eight years ago — it is the strongest, most durable economy in the world.”

Most workers face a sharply different reality — high unemployment and underemployment, speedup and unsafe working conditions, and an epidemic of opiate addiction and other social disasters arising from the moral and political crisis of capitalism.

“Far from representing a sweeping victory for the right, Trump’s election shows the impact of years of capitalist crisis on working people,” Alyson Kennedy, who ran as presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party, told the Militant Nov. 9. [...]"

They may not have numbers but that analysis is superior to the snowflakes who convinced themselves Hillary was Joe Hill and was running for the small man and woman. Give us 10 SWP or equal for every 10000 snotting self centered Hillary supporters and then neo liberals and Trump would be crapping themselves.
 

Notachipanoaktree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
8,137
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.
I hope I'm around when they come to get you, first. I wanna see if you have any sense of the sh*it you are responsible for, before they send you to hell.

Statistically we're fuc*ked and in fact we're fuc*ked. There is a solution but neither you nor I nor all the googlees are part of it. They can squeal all they want but by that time nobody will give a rats ass.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The left today still would. The pseudo progressives who make every struggle about their response and their feelings clearly wouldn't since they are in the first instance not left wing, and in the second instance would ve so busy live tweeting their experiences and emotions that any revolution they were involved with would quickly be finished.
Sanders needs to tell them to stop being such losers cause Trump won't be challenged by emotional incontinents but by people who actually oppose neo liberalism.

Joe hill didn't say first have a good cry and don't be embarrassed by that and when you feel safe you should organize provided that you feel up to it and that you have a group of like minded people who value your emotions and support you.
I have the greatest sympathy for Bernie Sanders. Hes not a Democrat. Hes a Liberal Marxist. Like me.

Liberal Marxists stand between the devil and the deep blue sea. They dont have the basic organisational skills of the old Trades Unionists, who watch every differential like a hawk. They cant and wont indulge in Romantic rhetoric of a back-to- the-pure-age-of taking-in-each-others-washing to make-ends-meet a la dammit-im-mad of this parish. They think that globalisation is nothing more than robber barons with treaties, but at the same time they wont lend themselves to the sort of petty dungheap nationalism which makes the populist right so alluring to the bears of little brain. They understand and value the old liberal tradition that individuals must be respected and their choices of sexual partner etc left up to themselves, but at the same time, they dont think that is a cause which should be considered paramount. They wont use violent and arbitrary methods which the Stalinists would, given half a chance, even though they believe that the present world order is based on the use of power, when you get right down to it - not just money.

its a very tough roe to hoe.
 

Notachipanoaktree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
8,137
Gettin' a bit hot around here. I'm off back to Kepler186f. Mission complete.

[video=youtube;14zszKEKz-I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14zszKEKz-I&feature=youtu.b[/video]

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,081
I hope I'm around when they come to get you, first. I wanna see if you have any sense of the sh*it you are responsible for, before they send you to hell.

Statistically we're fuc*ked and in fact we're fuc*ked. There is a solution but neither you nor I nor all the googlees are part of it. They can squeal all they want but by that time nobody will give a rats ass.
Could you take yourself off to the seashore and rant your hysteria to the four winds?
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
5,018
The OP seems to be linking any criticism of free trade to autarky.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,081
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?
Obviously, you try to compensate for losses ... that is what the social safety net is all about, social welfare payments, free healthcare, retraining and job searching. That to me is a "normal" economic setup. Community suppor replace industry that go to the wall should be a function of Government.

But not for neo-liberalism obviously, where any Government economic interference is anathema, and a violation of "freedom".

You cannot legislate a command economy where the government orders the market, tells it what to produce, how much and when. But the stupidity of a command economy is well known I hope. A regulated market is the most reasonable solution, but not a Utopian one.

Moving from a manufacturing job to a service one that pays less is tough, but can tide you over. I drove a taxi for two years to put bread on the table. You may have to retrain to move on.
 

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
Obviously, you try to compensate for losses ... that is what the social safety net is all about, social welfare payments, free healthcare, retraining and job searching. That to me is a "normal" economic setup. Community suppor replace industry that go to the wall should be a function of Government.

But not for neo-liberalism obviously, where any Government economic interference is anathema, and a violation of "freedom".

You cannot legislate a command economy where the government orders the market, tells it what to produce, how much and when. But the stupidity of a command economy is well known I hope. A regulated market is the most reasonable solution, but not a Utopian one.

Moving from a manufacturing job to a service one that pays less is tough, but can tide you over. I drove a taxi for two years to put bread on the table. You may have to retrain to move on.
You realize you sound like a US Republican, right?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,081
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).
Capitalism is the best system, but I mean regulated capitalism , with safety nets, not neo-liberalism.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,081
I don't understand that question.

You seem to think that there is a binary difference between trade policies. There is not.
So Protectionism and Free Trade are the same?

You should explain.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,081
You realize you sound like a US Republican, right?
No, US Republicans are neo-liberals, as you are about to find out when they give big tax cuts that the wealthy can use to invest in China, expand the military-industrial complex, deprive millions of health insurance, defund social security, and defund Medicare.

Led by the Outsider, Defender of the Little Guy, Donald "I will be your voice" Trump.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,883
Capitalism is the best system, but I mean regulated capitalism , with safety nets, not neo-liberalism.
Why would capitalism be better than a system where the means of production were under common ownership?
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
5,018
So Protectionism and Free Trade are the same?

You should explain.
No, I didn't even imply that.

Certain elements of a country's trade policy can be protectionist while overall remaining free trade. It isn't a case of being either one or the other.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top