01 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarIsn't the premise of capitalism that free trade is beneficial?
That's depends on the form of capitalism. A country has got to look after its self interest first. Energy is something that a country needs and therefore is something that goes beyond simple economics. It is national security.
I believe in free trade, as long as it is free trade and not simply allowing one country to put up restrictions against you while you let them dump on your market. That isn't capitalism. That's suicide.
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't believe that trade embargoes are effective in improving human rights abroad.
China can do the job cheaper because it is an authoritarian country with severe restrictions on its workers' rights. If that's "capitalism", its pernicious effects should not be supported by Western liberal democracies.
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, I don't see what I'm saying as a stepping stone to Free Trade. I see Free Trade as a myth. It can't be achieved, so why pretend that it can be achieved.
And you see a heavily mercantilist policy as some kind of stepping stone to True Free Trade? How would that work exactly?
Until you are willing to find a trading partner who is willing to enter into a Free Trade agreement with you, you should deal with the situation at hand. I would describe my position more in line with Realpolitik.
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you're saying that the Dutch government should have kept the mines open and saved Fokker? Heck, maybe they should have saved the (at the time very large) textile industry in the 17th century as well. I think it would have been awesome if I was stichting clothing right now instead of being a physicist.
I don't believe that having your own people lose their jobs because of repressive policies in other nations is good for your people.
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarOdd that you seem to believe in free trade when it comes to domestic trade, but not when it comes to international trade.
No, I don't see what I'm saying as a stepping stone to Free Trade. I see Free Trade as a myth. It can't be achieved, so why pretend that it can be achieved.
Until you are willing to find a trading partner who is willing to enter into a Free Trade agreement with you, you should deal with the situation at hand. I would describe my position more in line with Realpolitik.
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarRealpolitik sounds fascist to me.
No, I don't see what I'm saying as a stepping stone to Free Trade. I see Free Trade as a myth. It can't be achieved, so why pretend that it can be achieved.
Until you are willing to find a trading partner who is willing to enter into a Free Trade agreement with you, you should deal with the situation at hand. I would describe my position more in line with Realpolitik.
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMaybe the people without a job would think it was "awesome" if they had one.
So you're saying that the Dutch government should have kept the mines open and saved Fokker? Heck, maybe they should have saved the (at the time very large) textile industry in the 17th century as well. I think it would have been awesome if I was stichting clothing right now instead of being a physicist.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDid they have to do like many Americans and take a cut in pay?
The vast majority of ex-miners and ex-employees of Fokker found new jobs.
If you have full employment and you can give people other jobs that pays the same or better, then there is nothing wrong with outscourcing.
If you do not have full imployment, then the people who get laid off are taking jobs that could be filled by other unemployed people. If you are pulling a Walmart and forcing your population to take low wage jobs, then you are simply lowering the standard of living for those whose jobs have been outsourced.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarThe US could get to full employment in two years easily, but it would take some unpopular measures.
Did they have to do like many Americans and take a cut in pay?
If you have full employment and you can give people other jobs that pays the same or better, then there is nothing wrong with outscourcing.
If you do not have full imployment, then the people who get laid off are taking jobs that could be filled by other unemployed people. If you are pullin ...[text shortened]... , then you are simply lowering the standard of living for those whose jobs have been outsourced.