posted
I seem to have found some pretty fast company on this board....Such being the case; I would like to pose a question that I have.
I have always been fascinated by eoconomics....prolly cause it is infinatly confusing and very simple at the same time.
What does the U.S. stand to gain long-term from free trade?
In the short run I see the benefits.....but here is what I have come to believe....
Essentially if you look at the "World Economy" as a whole....wouldn't you have view it as a "zero sum market." With various nations operating at differing levels. It would also stand to reason that every eoconomic policy has a cost. You have to trade something off for whatever it is that your going after.
Here is what i am wondering....As the nation that has been on top of the economic pile for a while....assuming that you can view it as Zero Sum Market....why would you open your trade borders up to the world....if you are on top and the market is truly zero sum; dont you only stand to lose while other countries gain...?
I think that the logic is that it would grow our economy if the other countries reciprocate and let us in......but I think the error is that people equate big economies to healthy economies and that is not so.
I am not advocating that the U.S. should use its economy to supress growth in other countries; but are we wrong if we try to protect our own domestic health.
So is there anything that U.S. stands to gain long term.....and if a country does gain; doesn't it have to be at the expense of the other participant/s????
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO? it's not about the USA gaining anything, it's about individuals gaining everything.
this is always the failure of the Ayn Rand worshippers. the book Atlas Shrugged is a must-read if you want to fully understand where the rugged individualists are coming from.
that is a flawed belief system wherein rugged individualists are beleived to be the "fountainhead" of economic growth and deserve to have everything they can "grab"- the theory is that simply because they are able to do so, they shuold.
it's too bad Mach isn't here to present the flip side to my claims.
his quote "greed is good" finds it's roots there.
however, as a rugged individualist myself? i see the deep flaws in this theory.
for starters? there is no real fountainhead. all forward progress is built upon past accomplishments of others.
as an artist? i work alone in feild where working alone is very, no extremely rare. it limits me greatly, and i don't have the time or space to give details but basically? in Italy and allof th e"best" glass studios the work isperformed by two to five person teams. if i had a five person teams i could be ten times a s productive. It really is that simple.
the major flaws in Randianism (better known as Objectivism) are that we are social animals by nature, and you cannot go against your own nature.
no man or woman can stand alone against numbers and thrive. i've taken on five grown men in one serious hand to hand fight and won, but i will carry the scars forever. Just like US going into Iraq alone (no matter how much Bush tried to paint over it with the propaganda slogan "Coalition of the Willing"? we went in alone.
when Mach said that we need a blend of socialism and capitalism to compete in the world, i didn't disagree. we can choose certain socialistic tendencies that give us a competitive advantage (cough, cough, healthcare, cough)
and still reward our best and brightest rugged individualists well enough to be (and remain) the "fountainhead" of progress in R&D worldwide.
the huge BUT here is that just R&D don't cut it.
we have to maintain a powerful workforce of middle class people that are SATISFIED with their lot in life.
that is not optional at any level. all Revolutions come from tow things, Ambition and Dissatisfaction. Each person needs to be able to BELIVE they can acheive their reasonable goals. They need to be educate JUST enough to acheive those goals and most importantly just enough to understand their own limitiations so they do dnot over-reach.
The essence of Objectivism, according to Rand, is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
there is the flaw, glaring right at you. MY rugged individualists butt is (quite happily) married to an equally (or so i keep trying to convince myself) ruggedly individualistic woman with very different needs and goals. we have to negotiate to find equilibrium and that does mean giving things up, and we do this because we are human, not in spite of it IMO...
many of the "objectivist" types would call me and my wife co-dependant, but i think they are afraid of something.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would rate my intelligence level at about a 4 or 5 compared to Glassman who I would rate at a 9 or 10, so my answer is going to be far less eloquent or "brainy" than his...
I am a realist, with a great deal of common sense and fairly good analytical skills, and in answer to your question...
"What does the U.S. stand to gain long-term from free trade?"
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...
In fact since the day we have opened up to idiotic idea of "free trade", the quality of life for all working class people in this country has declined and will continue to decline until we reach the level of third world countries...
The dissatisfaction, and the loss of hard earned wealth of the middle class will eventually lead to revolution...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheap labor! China, India, Mexico has it, we don't. Whether this helps average Americans is not the issue. It helps the bottom line of corporate America. By the way, both Democrats and Republicans have led us down this path. Ross Perot was right and I regret not voting for him.
Posts: 134 | From: PA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on if we are really in a zero-sum market or not.
A lot of the brainiacs of the past decades believed that we could support our national economy within the financial markets alone. (Rub two coins together to make three.) The idea being we could ship our 'dirty' jobs to lesser economies, get cheaper products and international cooperation for America. (If you are willing to close your eyes to quality standards and the loss of low and middle income jobs it is a great hypothesis. Every American that can 'get with the program' becomes an owner and the rest of the world makes up the working class.)
In a zero-sum world economy it is easy to see that eventually the money flow would tip too far to one side and this hypothesis would fail. The question then becomes did they know it was going to fail and just not care about the long term affects or did they really believe that we do not live in a zero-sum world economy and that we would be able to create new wealth when we needed it?
I guess that is another question. Have we really added a couple trillion to the budget deficit with our stimulus and rescue packages over the past year or have we created this money out of thin air and it will just disappear when we no longer need it?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sorry that I have not gotten back to this until now.
Very insightful all round....
I have flipped on this numerous times... and that is uncharacteristic of me.....I like to think that persons of the same ilk as Ben Franklin are right..."trade has never hurt a country."
However, he is dead...the world is different, moreso, than he could have ever imagined...I respect his genius....but his ideas would be considered elementary by the slowest 8th grader today.
Glass,
You got over my head really fast; but I promise I will look into it.
Retired,
I think along the same lines as you do....at least for now.
Browndog,
I agree....and it has been conservatives for the most part....much to my chagrine!
B.F.,
We have to be zero sum....with one exception.....technoloy.... there is only so much that this planet has to offer.....tech is the only way to extend it...the further we progress against the limits of the earth....the harder it will become to do so (environmental resistance).
At some point....does it not come down to, who has the ability to take it? And then......???????
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey! did anyone else realize that "rounder" said; "technoloy?"......how dumb is that guy?
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technoloy is the only place where we are not limited to zero-sum.
I think this is exactly my point. Our currency is no longer hooked to the gold standard or any other physical manifestation and our banking industries have been digitized. There may only be so much oil, so much coal, and so much gold, but in this age the amount of bills we have in our name is only a fraction of the money that we own. The bank itself is not required to hold physical representations of the currency it holds either beyond established minimums. Our bills are limited only by the finite amounts of ink to print and paper to print it on, and our accounts are limited only by the infinite amounts of digits we can all put in our accounts.
When it comes to finance which is the backbone of the economy have we transcended (for good or ill) the bounds of a finite world?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not surprised. I am not sure I entirely comprehend what I am trying to say myself. I will give it another shot tomorrow before I take off.
Cheers
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the issue of "just printing money" or creating it by placing electronic messages in a computer suystem is not really worth the effort of arguing.
why?
because when the US does it? all of the other countries just follow suit. it is not in their interest to put their currency "out front".
why?
because we (US consumers) are the biggest consumers on the planet. they do not get paid as well if they allow our currency to degrade against theirs, so they degrade theirs in reaction to our weakenings. they have little choice.
there really is a cold economic war of on the global market.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never thought of that, Glass......I will have to think about it.
So essentially, the U.S. should have a very advantageous position in the Forex?.....at least from the trader's standpoint?????
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm told that the forex is the most transparent trading system there is..
i never got into trading it tho.
we have a few people around here that do..
Relentless is one, but he hasn't posted in a month or so.
as for how the dollar holds value? that scenario i posted is historic over the last 50 years, not forward looking...
if the dollar were to become weak? Americans could go back to producing exports. China likes their weak Yuan and they actively keep it weak. it's hard to export goods with a strong currency.
so when you hear the govt talking heads saying yhey are committed to a strong dollar? that means they want cheap oil and a "service economy"..
oil (currently) trades in US dollars and the price of oil goes up as the dollar weakens.
a weak dollar would put more production jobs in the US economy...
all this yakking about rules regualtion and taxes destroying American jobs is nonesense. it's a strong dollar that hurts American jobs
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I would argue there is no such thing as zero sum.
Okay, I will bite....why do you argue that?
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah...In returning and trying to look at this with fresh eyes I think I agree with Relentless. Our economic model is only zero-sum on the most basic levels. In truth it isn't zero sum at all.
Think of it like the stock market. There are gains and losses but the market isn't a zero sum game. The only real gains and losses are tabulated after a position is closed and by then personal opinions and emotions have fluctuated the market to the point where one persons gain does not equal another persons loss.
I believe our economy is moving farther and farther away from zero sum as it evolves and I think that is part of why we got ourselves in so much trouble financially speaking. We were accounting based on one plus one equals two and one minus one equals zero without even realizing that when we started basing a large part of our economy on future values we added imaginary units to equations. Thereby one plus one imaginary unit does not necessarily equal two.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In trying to understand my own point I think I have ended up straying from the original topic entirely.
What does the US stand to gain from long term free trade?
My answer would be fairly straight forward though I don't know that I agree with the philosophy behind it.
Commerce.
Free trade ensures that America will always be one of the greatest commercial centers of the world. With free trade there are no reasons to shun the American market in favor of others and can actually give enterprising Americans the chance to sell foreign products to secondary markets for a profit. Thus, increasing the wealth of the nation while decreasing the labor needed to obtain it.
That, I believe, is one of the main reasons free trade is a political mainstay in our nation.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now I am wondering if that answer holds true and facilitates all of the notions that various citizens consider to be the "core" of what American was,is, and should be.....or is it simply the direction that we are being taken in; in hopes of the easiest course towards financial gain.
If we agree that everything has a "trade off"; then I am forced to ask....."does anyone really know and appreciate what may be sacrificed."
I am truly afraid that there is a lot more at stake than the majority of people realize....perhaps they simply don't slow down long enough to think through to all of the possible conclusions.....or perhaps I am off base on this.
But, if I am not.....what could be done at this point......the issue.....in my opinion.....is to complicated for a referendum (bet I get hammered for that statement).....politics controls policy and money controls politics; so it would seem that the idea of electing enough people to sway this course is out.....
without intending to; I feel that I am making a case for the 2nd amendment......I say that because I am wondering what is the recourse if this is the wrong methodology for the U.S. to be engaged in.
With regards to "free trade" and the "global economy".....have we reached "critical mass?"
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Free trade ensures that America will always be one of the greatest commercial centers of the world. With free trade there are no reasons to shun the American market in favor of others and can actually give enterprising Americans the chance to sell foreign products to secondary markets for a profit. Thus, increasing the wealth of the nation while decreasing the labor needed to obtain it.
that's the theory. the reality is that "banking and investment" at all levels involves Trust with a capital T. In th elong run? no amount greed can overcome an overall lack of trust
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I would argue there is no such thing as zero sum.
But there is. For every loss there is a gain on the other side and for every gain there is a loss on the other side equally to zero. For every winner there is a loser in other words.
Anyways Wiki says it best:
In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the only way you can have zero-sum game is if you go back to a gold standard or some other similar hard currency standard.
It depends on what you are talking about when it comes to zero sum game. If you mean trading the dollar in Forex then no, the gold standard is not needed. It's trading much like stock trading. On a trade there is a winner on one side of the trade and a loser on the other side of that trade that equals zero because they cancel each other out.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a zero sum situation to exist there would have to be an unchanging resource that was traded. As far as currency we know that is not the case by watching our government print dollars quicker than CMKX printed shares. As far as goods or services it would suggest if not outright declare that we have already discovered and utilized everything on or in this planet. There is no such thing as zero sum anything.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmmmmmmmmm... No... It's fact. Zero sum means no overall change... That's impossible when every part of the economic landscape is changing perpetually. Zero sum is a notion furthered by socialists and communists... But nothing more than a notion.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that everyone is going back and forth on the zero sum thing....but I think that the answer has to do with how far you see.....
"eye sight" is not the same for everyone.....especially if one has a reason to be focused on the foreground....What I call the horizon may appear to you; right in front of your face.
I mentioned zero sum and technology for this reason:...
The earth has to be a zero sum environment in many regards oil, gas, "natural diamonds", gold, silver,....perhaps even water one day.....these are just current or emerging issues.....anything could be next.
I know that we currently operate under a fiat money system.....but as certain resources run out and inflation takes its toll....."what happens?"
Yes, when looked at in a vacuumm; zero sum does not exist because there is always enterprising persons that seek "gain" by stretching "this or that" (and thank God for them).
Okay.....humor me on this.... imagine extreme scarcity of a critical good, for which there is no viable substitute.........Now. would not that item become the chief currency for the entire world? It cannot be replaced, it is essential (not luxury), and "tech" has not been able to replicate it.
I see two things happening simultaneously. First, people would dedicate all of their resource to find some method of viable replication or substitution. Second, in the mean time; governments would wage war over control of the item/s.
So I say; "there is no zero sum...till there is."
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"eye sight" is not the same for everyone.....especially if one has a reason to be focused on the foreground....What I call the horizon may appear to you; right in front of your face.
ain't that the truth.
there is no zero sum. as i have pointed out over and over again? people are afraid the dollar will collapse over printing too much US dollars, but everybody else just prints more of their currency to maintain the dollar.
the concept of zero sum is like infinity. it's simply a figment of imagination that has some vague intellectual uses but is totally impractical to work with in the real world.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, guys.....I am just fishing around for thoughts.....and I hope that you are right.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
is the only place where we are not limited to zero-sum. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
