EU - Page 2

@Henrik phil,

It depends of what you consider a benefit. Free trade benefits the countries economically, but the social effects are another story.

@manored,

manored wrote:

It depends of what you consider a benefit. Free trade benefits the countries economically, but the social effects are another story.

If the majority of the people don't benefit from the money, if that is what you mean by 'social effects' then I don't see where the economic benefit lies.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

If the majority of the people don't benefit from the money, if that is what you mean by 'social effects' then I don't see where the economic benefit lies.

Others may see though, asking him to name a country that has benefited from free-trade will just shift the discussion from "whenever free trade is good or bad" to "whenever free trade was good or bad for X country".

Also, I believe that the adverse social effects free-trade may have are temporary. Once enough time has passed for the society to reorganize itself around the new situation, things tend to get better.

@manored,

manored wrote:

Others may see though, asking him to name a country that has benefited from free-trade will just shift the discussion from "whenever free trade is good or bad" to "whenever free trade was good or bad for X country".

Also, I believe that the adverse social effects free-trade may have are temporary. Once enough time has passed for the society to reorganize itself around the new situation, things tend to get better.

You say that free trade is beneficial and I have asked for evidence. How is that 'shifting the discussion'? Even if it is it is a reasonble shift, from broad abstractions to looking at examples and real life situations. That you do not wish to do this seems to suggest a lack of evidence for your viewpoint, but I am more than prepared to be corrected.
Also I am not willing to wait until free-trade magically starts working, since the same crap has been said about trickle down and has yet to emerge.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

You say that free trade is beneficial and I have asked for evidence. How is that 'shifting the discussion'? Even if it is it is a reasonble shift, from broad abstractions to looking at examples and real life situations. That you do not wish to do this seems to suggest a lack of evidence for your viewpoint, but I am more than prepared to be corrected.
Also I am not willing to wait until free-trade magically starts working, since the same crap has been said about trickle down and has yet to emerge.

If you and him differ in your concepts of what is a benefit, there is no point in asking examples of benefit. Especially taking in account that pure free trade probally never existed, if there is one thing I learnt in my history classes is that countries are always trying to gain advantage upon others in whatever way they manage to.

Its also not a matter of "magically start working", but of adaption. If two countries enter in a free trade agreement and one produces a certain good better than the other, this industry will vanish in one of these two countries and these people will have to work elsewhere... those things do not happen from day to night.

@manored,

manored wrote:

If you and him differ in your concepts of what is a benefit, there is no point in asking examples of benefit. Especially taking in account that pure free trade probally never existed, if there is one thing I learnt in my history classes is that countries are always trying to gain advantage upon others in whatever way they manage to.

I am trying to establish what we regard as benefits, which was part of the reason behind the request for an example.

manored wrote:

Its also not a matter of "magically start working", but of adaption. If two countries enter in a free trade agreement and one produces a certain good better than the other, this industry will vanish in one of these two countries and these people will have to work elsewhere... those things do not happen from day to night.

If it was a matter of quality I would see this as fine, but it is not. It is about cheapness, and it undermines everything- quality of products, wages, the economy- it is atrocious.

@avatar6v7,

Then make a direct question.

If people chose cheapness over quality, it really cant be helped. Remember that the sucess of a business depends on who are the buyers.

@manored,

manored wrote:

Then make a direct question.

If people chose cheapness over quality, it really cant be helped. Remember that the sucess of a business depends on who are the buyers.

But the cheapness is not of the kind that really benefits consumers only a small number of very rich people.

@Henrik phil,

That could only be if the quality of the product was too small even for its cheap price, in wich case another industry with price matching quality would get the customers. You are starting to give me the impression you believe there is some evil conspiracy keeping rich people rich.

@manored,

manored wrote:

That could only be if the quality of the product was too small even for its cheap price, in wich case another industry with price matching quality would get the customers.

If people were clever enough to not buy things just because they are cheap, most of the worlds problems would probably already have disapeared.

manored wrote:

You are starting to give me the impression you believe there is some evil conspiracy keeping rich people rich.

It's called globilisation.

@Henrik phil,

So you are basically saying people are stupid and should be babysitted? We will never get a smart society that way.

Well if you do believe in a conspiracy then continuing this discussion is meangliness.

@manored,

manored wrote:

So you are basically saying people are stupid and should be babysitted? We will never get a smart society that way.

Well if you do believe in a conspiracy then continuing this discussion is meangliness.

For the first point I would say that is the principle behind governments, and that people will probably always be suceptible to short-sighted greed.
As to the second I do not think that there are people meeting each other or plotting together to rip off poor people, but there are plenty of people who have found that the global system of economics that we have is financially advantageous to themeselves, and they fight hard to keep it that way. It is not much of a conspiracy as it is not very secret, though the motive is. Even if I did think there was a conspiracy, why would that render the discussion meingless? You seem rather narrow minded on this issue.

@Henrik phil,

The principle behind countries and governments is mutual protection and maximum efficiency, the government is not meant to think for the people or protect then from their own foolishness.

Free-trade may benefit some people in particular, and damage some people in particular, but this only a temporary and natural effect caused by a change in the economy system.

It renders the discussion meangliness because if you really believe in a conspiracy then I do not believe we can reach a conclusion.

@manored,

manored wrote:

The principle behind countries and governments is mutual protection and maximum efficiency, the government is not meant to think for the people or protect then from their own foolishness.

What country do you live in?

manored wrote:

Free-trade may benefit some people in particular, and damage some people in particular, but this only a temporary and natural effect caused by a change in the economy system.

Which is just repeating your last point. Justify it. Why will it naturally get better.

@avatar6v7,

Brazil. If you ask me if the government here thinks for the people or protects then from their own foolishness, I will have to admit that yes, but that is not something I agree with.

manored wrote:

Its also not a matter of "magically start working", but of adaption. If two countries enter in a free trade agreement and one produces a certain good better than the other, this industry will vanish in one of these two countries and these people will have to work elsewhere... those things do not happen from day to night.

Concentrated production means more efficiency, more efficieny means that more wealth is generated. Free-trade will cause the concentration of production by leading industries bankrupt while the winners have to increase their production to fill in the market space the losers left behind... but off course it will take time until the worker of the bankrupt all get new jobs, as it will for the growing industry to reorganize, expand, wire new people, etc.

If you doubt that concentrated production means more efficiency, search the reasons why cargo boats and planes are built as large as possible.

@manored,

manored wrote:

Brazil. If you ask me if the government here thinks for the people or protects then from their own foolishness, I will have to admit that yes, but that is not something I agree with.

It is what laws are. Do you not agree with those?

manored wrote:

Concentrated production means more efficiency, more efficieny means that more wealth is generated. Free-trade will cause the concentration of production by leading industries bankrupt while the winners have to increase their production to fill in the market space the losers left behind... but off course it will take time until the worker of the bankrupt all get new jobs, as it will for the growing industry to reorganize, expand, wire new people, etc.
If you doubt that concentrated production means more efficiency, search the reasons why cargo boats and planes are built as large as possible.

That is a false example, as you are using a means of storage as analagous to production. A certain degree of centalisation is efficent, but if it is too centralised it begins to lose efficency. For instance in Russia centalisation has been a continuous and continually disastarous policy. If wages were the same in all countries your idea of it would work, but that is not the case. Goods are produced in China because workers are not payed much, not because goods are of higher quality. If you consider locking people into a system where wages are enforcibly kept low efficent, then damn efficency to hell.

@Henrik phil,

I agree with the laws that protect us from the mistakes of others, not with those that protect us from our own mistakes.

It is not false, the reasons why the efficiency is greater are similar, such as the use of less material on construction to achieve the same capacity, possibility of using bigger as well transports to bring in and out whatever has to be brought in or out, easier organization, etc. Off course there are limitations to how concentrated one thing can be winhout losing efficiency instead of gaining, but if these limitations are superated with, for example, invention of new materials, concentration becomes worthwhile again.

Wages differ due to politic, cultural and social reasons, the economy system itself is not a cause of it, even if it was created because of it.

@Henrik phil,

In this interesting clip, Vladimir Bukovsky compares the EU with the soviet union.
Vladimir Bukovsky

Philosophy Forum

EU

Quick Links

My Account

able2know