Someone tell me how "Free Trade Agreements" are a good thing?

[miko2d]

capt. apathy: I do understand the point you are trying to make about 'real wages'  as in the fact that your dollar would buy more goods as they become cheaper making the dollars you have worth more.

 So far so good.

the big problem that occures when reality slams into your theory is, the things that are becoming cheaper through what you are wrongly calling 'free trade'** mostly things that we buy with what money we have left over after we've bought what we need,  while things like healthcare and a place to sleep just keep going up.

 The reason why healthcare and living accomodations grow more expensive in real terms has nothing to do with free trade or even free market - in fact it id directly caused by government interference into free market.
 Those costs would/will be growing even if USA bacame a total autarchy (no foreign trade whatseover).

 Your point was that workers lose jobs to foreign imports. I am saying that with free market the workers get more and better-paying jobs due to foreign imports.

 Some worker can lose a job and some entrepreneur may lose a business to a more cost-efficient producer in another country and state. But a country cannot lose jobs to another country under free trade. It is not possible to have a free trade imbalance. Increase in imports causes increase in imports and vice versa.

also where are these 'more and better paying' jobs comming from? if we aren't hiring people here because we can do the work elswhere in a unregulated environment, and then sell them here where people have the money then exactly what are your workers here going to be doing?

 OK, read carefully.
 Cheap products from abroad cause increase in real wages and would cause drop in nominal wages - under free market conditions. That would increase demand for labor and create more jobs. That would also increase demand for products and exports and create yet more jobs.
 The outflow of the currency to pay the foreign workers would drop the exchange rate abroad but raise the purchasing power inside - which would increase exports untill they equal imports, thus creating still more jobs. That is of course under free market conditions inside.

Not only my theory looks good "in theory", it perfectly describes what and why is happening now and happened in the past - once you take into consideration the interference with the free market.

** again, it is not free trade when one manufacturer is legally required to incure costs that his competitors are not

 That's true. The costs are always ultimately borne by workers and consumers.

 Nevertheless, you punish your own workers and consumers more than you help with job creation while refusing cheap or free imports.
 Few hundred jobs saved by steel and lumber tariffs cost US hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries using steel and lumber.

since we are not willing (and rightly so) to do away with basic human rights, or even the very minimal environmental and workplace protections we already have.

 Not willing - correct. Rightly so - not. The government propaganda may claim that improvements are due to the legislature. It is not. Without those laws we would have better and safer environments than we have now. Also better and cheaper healthcare and housing and more of it.

 miko

[capt. apathy]

Lol, no you won't

we have a winner.

[miko2d]

ravells: I wonder whether he would think the same way if he were one of those workers. I suspect not.

 Here is how it would work if I were a scoundrel - and actually does in all cases.

 If I did not have a job, I would be very pissed off with bleeding-heart liberals for denying me a low-paying job just because I could not have a great job. I'd rather work than starve.

 Once I got that job, I would try to organise a union and raise the wages, using the bleeding-heart liberals as my propaganda mouthpiece. I would also use violence and political influence - otherwise the company would just replace me with another willing worker.

 Considering that the company has already sunk capital into my factory, there is a chance that it would increase my wage as well as wages for those already employed. But it would not create more new jobs or as many new jobs as it would otherwise from now on.

 That would mean that pootely-paid people would get better pay while people who are not paid and could have been paid poorly will not be paid anything.

 Benefitting better-off workers at the expense of consumers, shareholders and the most desperate workers/unemployed - that's what the unions and political wage laws are all about.

 Of course the same government that ensured my higher wage would take them away from me to feed those who are denied work by my actions. With a piece going to the government in the process.
 This way we will have less total production because of unutilised labor, burt both workers and unemployed will be thinking they owe the governent their good fortune!

 There is a law of supply and demand. You raise price above market rate, you get surplus. Surplus of labor means people starving and less goods produced.

 Lower wages, and all will be employed and more goods will be produced and everything produced will be consumed becasue prices for goods would drop faster than wages - like it happened from 1750 to 1930.

 miko

[miko2d]

capt. apathy: we have a winner.

 Well, you've addressed a specific point rather than ignoring it and I elaborated it just like I promised. Now you can pick apart the details of my elaboration.

 miko

[ravells]

lol!

Chances are you would not get that far because the company or the state would get you first...see below:

Amnesty International is deeply concerned at reports that police in the Dominican Republic raided the office of a local trade union yesterday, 6 August, and opened fire on those inside in order to prevent them from carrying out a protest scheduled for later that afternoon in the capital, Santo Domingo.

[Hooligan]

Ravells:

In case you haven't noticed Miko is advocating that economic practices be as free from coercion as possible, while you are advocating coercion as a basic principle.  i.e. if some company wants to pay an individual a certain amount for their services (on the production line or as the CEO) and that individual wants to take the job for the offered compensation, under Miko’s preferred system nobody besides the 2 parties to the contract have a thing to say about.

Apparently you prefer a system based on coercion;  A system where some government authority has the power to regulate wages.  Of course, these government regulations, like all laws, are enforced by the police at the point of a gun.  So even though you seem aghast at the Dominican police using force against a trade union, you propose a system whereby this is exactly the end result.  I’m sure the Dominican police would be perfectly happy to be strong-arming the company instead of the trade union, if those were the orders they were receiving from their political bosses.  A free market system is infinitely preferable to a system where economic negotiations are settled by force and political influence.

Hooligan

[ravells]

Hello Hooligan,

Every society needs enforceable laws in order to function (for which read 'coercion'), otherwise there would be anarchy.

I cannot think of a single example where a police force has summarily executed directors of a company because the workers told them to do so.

I can think of many examples where the police have been complicit or responsible for causing violence to workers who are trying to organise themselves to speak with a collective voice.

This is because the workers have very few resources whereas trans-national corporations have vast resources. What would be preferable is that in either case, rather than using violence the parties should have recourse to the courts. That's why we have a court system.

Both you and miko seem to think that social justice and a free market economy walk in lockstep. Whilst this is sometimes the case, it is not always the case.

The reason why state intervention is needed where employer/employee relationships are concerned is because there is often a fundamental inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee. A free market system is only 'fair' if all the players taking part have a sufficient degree of education and are able to compel each other to carry out their obligations.

Fortunately, heads wiser than ours at the UN have this September agreed the wording of the new "U.N. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights"

This is a good step to make transnationals respect the basic human rights of their employees.

take care

Ravs

[lazs2]

ravells... you can't think of a single incidence wher a company was "nationalized"?   taken over by force by govenrment officials?

again... you can give examples of workers being killed and coerced by government.   less powerful government and less coercion would have been best in both cases.   Why do you feel that it is allright for the government to control work practices only if they are coercing the company and not the worker?  
lazs

[Jack55]

Originally posted by lazs2
ravells... you can't think of a single incidence wher a company was "nationalized"?   taken over by force by govenrment officials?

 

Didn't El Commandante Fidel Castro do that in Cuba?

[ravells]

GOOD ANSWER!

Yes, you are absolutely right. States do expropriate private company assets from time to time - but not on the say so of the employees of those companies.  These days, it's usually done by some dictator trying to grab free wealth or power (I am thinking of the white farmers who have had their farms seized in Zimbabwe).

Less coercion would certainly have been better. Less powerful government? Perhaps so. It is less powerful governments that become beholden to promoting transnational interests, so I guess that there are points that can be made both ways on that one.

The legislation I am talking about regulates the relationship between the employer and employee so they are both subject to it (or if you like, coerced).

cheers

Ravs

[miko2d]

ravells: Every society needs enforceable laws in order to function (for which read 'coercion'), otherwise there would be anarchy.

 Right - the laws that would protect people from agression and coersion by others, not the laws imposing such agression and coercion.

Both you and miko seem to think that social justice and a free market economy walk in lockstep. Whilst this is sometimes the case, it is not always the case.

 Not really. Free market economy necessarily preceeds social justice. Once the free-market relationships started to develop in class-based autoritarian societies - like England, the personal liberties soon followed.

The reason why state intervention is needed where employer/employee relationships are concerned is because there is often a fundamental inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee.

 And it worked great in mercantilist societies of 12-17th centuries, in Soviet Union, China, etc., right? How come only with removal of state controls over economy the conditions of the workers start to improve?

A free market system is only 'fair' if all the players taking part have a sufficient degree of education and are able to compel each other to carry out their obligations.

 Right, the workers should not be allowed to make a decision - like accepting employment al less than a union wage - because they are too dumb to decide fro themselves.

Fortunately, heads wiser than ours at the UN have this September agreed...

 Are you saying that you are too dumb and in need of a master?

 miko

[lazs2]

I don't know... every mexican and south american dictator that "nationalizes" a company does so on the "behalf" of the poor exploited workers.   The people are the government after all.
lazs

[Hooligan]

Ravells wrote:

Every society needs enforceable laws in order to function (for which read 'coercion'), otherwise there would be anarchy.

Yes this is the only reason we have government.  Laws punishing robbery, rape, fraud and theft are good things.  Using force to regulate wages, sexual practices among consenting adults, whether or not you can smoke, etc... etc... is a horrible abuse of government power although you seem unable to realize this.  If you had your way, soon enough the government will be sending police around to count the number of televisions in your flat, and the tragic/comic nature of this will completely pass you by.

While “social justice” and a free market economy are not in lockstep, “social justice” and a socialist economy aren’t even on the same road.  The reality of the situation is that poor downtrodden workers in great bastions of “social justice” like China, Vietnam and Russia are a hell of a lot better off when Nike builds a factory in their neighborhood.

And what do you think happened to all the factory owners in the Soviet Union when it formed in 1918?

Hooligan

[GRUNHERZ]

Fortunately, heads wiser than ours at the UN have this September agreed

[ravells]

Hi miko

ravells: Every society needs enforceable laws in order to function (for which read 'coercion'), otherwise there would be anarchy.

Right - the laws that would protect people from agression and coersion by others, not the laws imposing such agression and coercion.

Don't follow you there miko. Can you explain why laws requiring a company to provide a safe system of work for its employees is agressive or coercive?

---------------

Both you and miko seem to think that social justice and a free market economy walk in lockstep. Whilst this is sometimes the case, it is not always the case.

Not really. Free market economy necessarily preceeds social justice. Once the free-market relationships started to develop in class-based autoritarian societies - like England, the personal liberties soon followed.

Agreed. And so did legislation preventing the exploitation of employees. As I keep saying, having a free market economy and protecting basic human rights are not mutually exclusive. All of you consistently miss this point and think that I advocating some sort of communism.

-----------------

The reason why state intervention is needed where employer/employee relationships are concerned is because there is often a fundamental inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee.

And it worked great in mercantilist societies of 12-17th centuries, in Soviet Union, China, etc., right? How come only with removal of state controls over economy the conditions of the workers start to improve?

Virtually every nation on earth today has labour laws and most have employment courts. You appear to think that I am saying that a state should govern every aspect of a company's behavior which I am not. I am saying that a state should, by legislation, provide minimum standards of treatment in the employment relationship - as is presently the case in every western democracy today.

--------

A free market system is only 'fair' if all the players taking part have a sufficient degree of education and are able to compel each other to carry out their obligations.

Right, the workers should not be allowed to make a decision - like accepting employment al less than a union wage - because they are too dumb to decide fro themselves.

Sadly it is the case that many people at the bottom of the social ladder have not had any education and do need to be protected from exploitation. Watch Ja erry Springer show to find out more about what I mean.

--------------------------

Fortunately, heads wiser than ours at the UN have this September agreed...

Are you saying that you are too dumb and in need of a master?

I am saying that I am not so arrogant so as to think I know more about the subject than people who have been researching it for 3 years or so.

cheers

Ravs