Comment: You describe free trade but call it globilization...

(See in situ)


You describe free trade but call it globilization...

Of course, when people on this site see the term globalization, they immediately think of a one world government - which free trade is not. This use of language is likely intentional.

This does not guarantee that the interests of every nation, class or individual is automatically served equally by the removal of all trade and labor barriers between nations and populations.

A free market guarantees no winners or losers. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcomes. In a free market, no one is "too big to fail."

China has a goal of industrializing, so they've used the modern equivalent of the tariff by holding down the yuan. Economics cannot decide whether that was a good or bad goal. It can only speak to the effectiveness of the policies chosen to achieve the end.

Qualify the statement, "it serves their specific goal [of industrializing]." It very well could be the case - and probably is - that China is benefiting from increased trade while protectionism is likely retarding their growth to some degree. With that realization, in order to validate your argument, you need to show a direct cause and effect relationship.

Low cognitive-demand (blue collar) labor in country A gets lower pay in a system in which it competes globally against impoverished near subsistence labor everywhere in the world. Universal global output goes up, yes, and many products are cheaper, and those specializing in cognitively demanding work in country A might benefit much more due to their somewhat more insulated position in the new schematics.

In a free market, this is not a problem. Demand increases for more highly skilled labor. In addition, there would be a reallocation of unskilled labor to other labor intensive industries. Your argument is similar to the traditional argument against technological progress - that is, "machines take away jobs." In that case, we should get rid of heavy equipment and dig ditches with spoons. In reality - as in the above case - new demand is created for workers to build, service, and operate the heavy equipment - ie a re-allocation of labor. The argument you present has been shown to be fallacious many times over in the past.

The only thing free trade claims is that it maximizes universal global output of production. It says nothing about the distribution of benefits between nations, groups or classes.

[...]

Whether or not equality under the law and civil liberties continue depends a lot on the power the average individual has, or or a broad middle class, over the state. If they lose their economic influence, they lose political power.

History shows that free markets foster an environment where middle classes burgeon. Modern banking cartels also act to concentrate the wealth towards the top. However, banking cartels cannot survive without an alliance with government. True free trade and the abolition of central banking would result in the creation of the largest middle class the world has ever seen.

Whether or not equality under the law and civil liberties continue depends a lot on the power the average individual has, or or a broad middle class, over the state. If they lose their economic influence, they lose political power.

What about slave rebellions? What about the fall of the USSR? Did the USSR fall because the people there gained a sufficient amount of economic influence to challenge the "imposed political limitations"? Your statement is incorrect. As well, the middle class - here in the US - gained more economic viability because of the lack of "imposed political limitations" - not the other way around.

Libertarian political ends are not necessarily served by the outcome of globalization of labor and trade, even if they make economic sense. It could easily serve elitist or authoritarian political ends to have tremendous concentration of wealth.

...only if central banking schemes are allowed to continue.

As for politics trumps economics, it is bogus. The crash of 2008, the fall of the USSR, the monetary policy of Diocletian, the upcoming economic collapse, ...

The list can go on and on. Economics is more powerful than governments - and, accordingly, politics.

Using deceptive language is a tool of tyrants. Globalization and free trade are not the same, and the word globalization has an anti-libertarian ring to it - which is likely why anyone upvoted this post in the first place.