Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (20389)	3/1/2002 8:59:28 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am having a very hard time understanding how you can be a fan of capitalism but believe free trade to be a construct. How do you think capitalism functions? >>There are more important standards to apply to policy decisions than whether those decisions benefit large multinational corporations. I'm not opposed to their benefitting but, if I got to choose, I would prefer policy decisions in which the issue of the general social benefit was a strong criterion.<< Your focus on large multinational corporations is misplaced. The companies which benefit from free trade may be small, maybe only employ a few people. The costs of dealing with trade restrictions are crippling to them. They are part of the same society you want to experience general social benefit.

To: JohnM who wrote (20389)	3/1/2002 9:18:09 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

fine with me, John --fl@unlessyouarelookingforawayout.com

To: JohnM who wrote (20389)	3/5/2002 9:17:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The only serious argument I know against my position is the one that sits, unshot yet from LindyBill's quiver but clearly hinted (and mentioned by Tim Fowler), strongly, at, which is the problem of who gets to make the decisions. They prefer, I assume, that corporate execs get to do so; I prefer democratically elected officials. I would prefer the decisions be made freely and without the power of the government decideing the issue by force. If I decide I want to get a computer with a chip made by AMD, Intel can't shoot me for it even if they are much more powerful then AMD. Expanded trade reduces the power of company CEOs and increases the power of the consumer. Also while corporate CEOs are powerful they only stay powerful if they can get customers to want to buy their products or if they get government "protection". If you reduce the power of government officals, if you reduce their ability to support or protect some companies, then you increase the power of "the little guy" who isn't forced to patronize the government favored company. Tim

To: JohnM who wrote (20389)	3/6/2002 3:01:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

which is the problem of who gets to make the decisions. They prefer, I assume, that corporate execs get to do so; I prefer democratically elected officials It takes the Politicians to allow free trade, John. No argument there. They control the borders. The position of the Corporate exec is to demand free trade for what he buys, and protection for what he sells. Here is a short piece from this months "Reason" on the long term effects of free trade. No Poor Traders Globalization debates By Brian Doherty According to the anti-globalization movement, the integration of the global economy is nothing more than a chance for the rich to fleece the poor. A recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that almost precisely the opposite is true: The best way to keep poor nations poor is to segregate them from the world economy. Economists Peter H. Lindert and Jeffrey G. Williamson examine data about world inequality, both within and between nations, from 1820 to the present. They chose 1820 as their starting point because it marked the emergence of what they contend is a truly global economy. "International commodity price convergence did not start until then," they write. "And [an] epochal move towards liberal policy (e.g., dismantling mercantilism) was manifested during that decade." Their analysis finds that "globalization favors all participants who liberalize, especially those who are newly industrializing, and penalizes those who choose not to liberalize, leaving them behind." Lindert and Williamson concede that the research done so far cannot authoritatively isolate increased international trade (one of the defining characteristics of "globalization") from all other factors as the cause of rising incomes. But "though no one study can establish that trade openness has unambiguously helped the representative Third World economy," they write, "the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion." They also note that no country that has been more protectionist in the 1990s than in the 1960s has simultaneously raised its standard of living.