30-11-2003 22:49									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Well, if free trade means the domestic country loses jobs, and allows pesky protectionist competitors to gain a relative advantage then countries that are relatively open should perform poorly, and have really high unemployment rates.

Therefore I propose that all countries unite to stop the evil that is trade forever. The future lies with self-sufficiency.

	30-11-2003 22:51									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Yes, but I find it pretty impressive that the US can raise tariffs towards a partner in a free trade area.

First of all, I don't support this tariff. It's plain stupid. But it's obviously an exception to the rule rather than the rule. Otherwise, Canada wouldn't be doing booming business with the States.

	30-11-2003 23:08									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The softwood tarrif is unfair, however, the Bush administration has proven time and again that they will break any agreement and screw any partner it takes in order for Bush to get reelected. He was losing support in wood producing states so he slapped a tarrif on Canadian wood and when he was losing support in steel producing states he slapped a tarrif on steel.

What really gets my goat is that the Republicans kept harping that Clinton was an oppurtunist who had no concrete values to guild him, yet when Bush turns out to be ten times worse those hypocrites don't say a word. Anyone remember how Bush campaigned on free trade but has instead pushed subsidies and tarrifs? Anyone remember Bush talking about balancing the budget but instead becoming the worst financial manager in US history? That's quite a feat given the competetion from Reagan. Also don't give me any nonsense that the deficit is caused by the war on terrorism. The vast majority of the deficit is caused by massive tax cuts, 90% of which went to just 10% of the population, and by out of control spending nearly all of which was requested by the Bush Administration and then rubber stamped by their lackeys in Congress.

$200 billion for farm subsidies, $400 billion for perscription drugs, $40 billion for Afghanistan, $150 billion for Iraq, big increases in just about every federal program... This guy is without a doubt the worst President in living memory if not of all time.

	30-11-2003 23:08									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler NAFTA is a joke. I always was in favour of Canada joining the EU.

Only if they get rid of their copyright law requirements. EU rocks in all other respects.

	30-11-2003 23:11									#35
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: This guy is without a doubt the worst President in living memory if not of all time.

	30-11-2003 23:12									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS Don't cry for Canada. Canada benefits hugely by a free trade zone with the US. Most of its population lives within 50 miles of the US border and a very large portion of the Canadian economy is US trade related.

Yes, we all moved within 50 miles of the uS border from up North when NAFTA was instituted. That's right.

It is in the interests of Canada to trade less with the US, not more. We don't want to be dependent on any one country.

	30-11-2003 23:14									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DanS

Dan, please explain why Bush should not be considered the worst PResident in Living memory.

	30-11-2003 23:17									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Dan, please explain why Bush should not be considered the worst PResident in Living memory.

Three words. Gasoline price controls.

If you're older, then Bush is turning out much better than average of presidents in living memory.

	30-11-2003 23:28									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS Definitely. Not "maybe, but maybe not". Dr Spike will fill you in on the details.

Hey! Don't drop me in it Mr S.

Hehe, Dan is correct though Oerdin. The effect of moving from autarky to an open economy has no effect on the employment rate other than that brought about by the overall increase in world output that the move from autarky brings about. This effect is small (in terms of employment levels) and positive.

This is not some silly abstract academic argument.........it is true, always was true, and always will be true in any real world application you care to choose.

NAFTA has been discussed, so start there. You see, the argument that the case for free trade doesn't take into account the effect on jobs is not a new one - in fact it comes up in virtually every thread on trade at any forum I have ever seen. It's still quite wrong however.

Regarding NAFTA Ross Perot famously made his comments about the 'sucking sound' as shifty Mexicans stole hardworking American's jobs. Economists told him the effect on employment of joining NAFTA would be essentially zero, or small and positive.

Fortunately, the economists were right.

	30-11-2003 23:37									#40
	Suffering from ads?

Please reread my arguement. I was saying that some countries are so uncompetetive that free trade with do more harm then good in the short and intermediate period. The US is very competetive so obviously this wouldn't apply to the US. The US may lose in some areas but gain in others, but, what about a country like Belarus? I bet they'd lose far more jobs then they'd gain as state owned industries are forced to close.

	30-11-2003 23:40									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: This is not some silly abstract academic argument.........it is true, always was true, and always will be true in any real world application you care to choose.

quote: "No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous." -- Benjamin Franklin

	30-11-2003 23:44									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yes, I heard it claimed so but prove that it would apply to a country which would be forced to close down it's state owned industries when every industry in the country is state owned. I am willing to bet that you are talking about the long term (25+ years) while I am talking about the short to medium term (less then 20 years).

	30-11-2003 23:46									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Hehe what makes you think the negative effect on the formerly protected (through autarky) state industry outweighs the positive effects?

Sure employment in the state industry could fall, but there can only be a redistribution, with a small positive impact on employment which comes from the gains from trade.

	30-11-2003 23:55									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Yes, I heard it claimed so but prove that it would apply to a country which would be forced to close down it's state owned industries when every industry in the country is state owned. I am willing to bet that you are talking about the long term (25+ years) while I am talking about the short to medium term (less then 20 years).

The point about time frames is well taken........ultimately what exactly happens is the short run is an empirical question. Of course, the state run industry doesn't collapse immediately in the short run, just as the new export market might not be exploitable in the short run as you say. History suggests that the benefits can be realised quite quickly.

	01-12-2003 00:00									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I was saying that some countries are so uncompetetive that free trade with do more harm then good in the short and intermediate period.

Also key to this debate is realising that the gains from trade do not require absolute advantage in production. Almost 200 years ago Ricardo showed why a country that was inferior in production of all products could still benefit from trade. Sadly, this is another point that escapes many of the people that think they understand international trade.

	01-12-2003 00:09									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

They would benifet from lower prices, no? Of course if you lose half of your tax base and 1/3 of your people become unemployed then those price decreases aren't going to mean very much will they? I grant you that few countries will be that uncompetetive but for those that are I believe a slow phase out of tarrifs is the best policy because it gives them time to increase their competetive level and let nonstate owned industries take root.

Granted it is still dependent upon the company to take the necissary steps so, as Dan showed with US Steel, poor management can still sabotage everything.

	01-12-2003 00:10									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DanS Don't cry for Canada. Canada benefits hugely by a free trade zone with the US. Most of its population lives within 50 miles of the US border and a very large portion of the Canadian economy is US trade related.

What free trade zone? BushII seems to have repealed NAFTA without telling anybody else...

	01-12-2003 00:23									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin They would benifet from lower prices, no? Of course if you lose half of your tax base and 1/3 of your people become unemployed then those price decreases aren't going to mean very much will they? I grant you that few countries will be that uncompetetive but for those that are I believe a slow phase out of tarrifs is the best policy because it gives them time to increase their competetive level and let nonstate owned industries take root.

There is no reason to think 1/3 of the population would become unemployed. The dometic demand that existed in autarky still exists after the switch. The time frame point is not without merit, but it applies to both sides. Namely, both import competition for the state industry and the export market potential will take time to develop.

You are correct in that in practice countries often move slowly from one point to another. The autarky to free trade instantaneous move is just a device. And it was a necessary device to underpin exactly why some of the arguments given earlier were incorrect. I hope the posts have helped anyone interested in international trade.

	01-12-2003 00:27									#49
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I contend that in the intermediate term demand would fall as people lose their jobs and thus their desposable income. Of course that would only happen in die hard countries like North Korea or the former Soviet Union as they move out of the communist system but never the less free trade isn't the best option for them.

If you are a South Africa or a Brazil then Free Trade will help much faster since there is a privite sector but they would still see much of their previously protected industry go belly up. Over time new industries (most likely foreign owned) will move in to take advantage of the open markets but that doesn't help if you are the guy trying to feed his family during the 10-20 realignment period.

	01-12-2003 00:31									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: What free trade zone? BushII seems to have repealed NAFTA without telling anybody else...

You perceive such strange things that aren't true. How am I to argue against an illusion of yours?

	01-12-2003 00:37									#51
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

What else would you call imposing a number of new tarriffs which have no hope of surviving NAFTA appeal, but which will nonetheless be in place for a couple of years before a panel can decide on them?

	01-12-2003 00:41									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I would call it something correct. Correct your own damn work.

	01-12-2003 00:47									#53
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I have no idea what that last comment means

	01-12-2003 00:51									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I contend that in the intermediate term demand would fall as people lose their jobs and thus their desposable income. Of course that would only happen in die hard countries like North Korea or the former Soviet Union as they move out of the communist system but never the less free trade isn't the best option for them.

Hehe but in the intermediate term when people are losing jobs in the state industry they are gaining them in the new export industries. You seem to me to be struggling to find a case where all of a sudden vast swathes of the population become unemployed, without the counteracting positive effects being allowed to kick in yet.

Ultimately what you suggest is not impossible in principle (though the conditions necessary for your conclusion to hold are somewhat torturous); in reality its an empirical question, and I can't think of any cases that back you up. I can think of many that back me up.

Anyway we're getting a little off the central points I'd like people interested in the issues to take away. What started this is your (Oerdin's) post that the US should only allow countries access to their markets if they acted likewise. Dan correctly pointed out that this wasn't true, since the main group affected by any Japanese protectionism is Japanese consumers. This is the first key point.

i.e. key point 1 is that the case for free trade does not depend on what others choose to do, as I posted earlier in response to Spiffor and Ben.

Key point 2 is that considering the effect on jobs does not in any way change the conclusion. This is worthy of a whole point, since the incorrect argument discussed is made every single time the case for free trade is presented.

Key point 3 is that the case for free trade only requires a comparative advantage in the production of some goods, not an absolute advantage.

	01-12-2003 00:59									#55
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I have no idea what that last comment means

When you say "[w]hat else would you call...", I suggest that you describe it right the first time, and refrain from the histrionics, and I won't have to do the work in imagining what you are trying to say and then wording it correctly for you.

Your arguing style is par for the internet, but it still sucks.

	01-12-2003 01:03									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Snooze. Histrionics? Try again. Maybe if I'd claimed that he was pulling the bread out of our children's mouths or something.

Exaggerated, yes. But I assumed you would take the comment for what it was worth, not literally...

	01-12-2003 01:05									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, what else would you call it? And don't act like a nutter this time.

	01-12-2003 01:05									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike Ultimately what you suggest is not impossible in principle (though the conditions necessary for your conclusion to hold are somewhat torturous); in reality its an empirical question, and I can't think of any cases that back you up. I can think of many that back me up

Post Soviet Russia lost something like 2/3 of it's economic output and still hasn't recovered it's level of employment and GDP it had in 1988. It's been 15 years.

How's that for an example? Of course you could, rightly, say the Russians don't have a free trade zone but compared to Soviet times trade has been greatly liberalized.

	01-12-2003 01:09									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, what else would you call it?

Politically-motivated protectionism, and reneging on at least the spirit of the NAFTA agreements.

quote: And don't act like a nutter this time.

The last time I checked I was here for entertainment, not to participate in a debating society.

I find this especially odd coming from somebody who has been known to engage in hit-and-run tactics from time to time himself...

	01-12-2003 01:15									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oerdin: Well that's an example of an economy where output fell. Is it one where output and employment fell as a result of trade liberalization? Or do you think perhaps changing the entire economic structure from a centralised system to a more market oriented one might have contributed a little?

In fact, like Spiffor's South Korea example earlier, you inadvertently reinforce my arguments. Trade liberalization and an increasing trade/gdp ratio in Russia since the early 90s has been (and will continue to be) a key driver of increasing prosperity, and an important factor in allowing unemployment levels to return to earth.

Last edited by DrSpike on 01-12-2003 at 01:21