[Boris]

I was having a lively debate with my professor today, then we some how got on free trade. So after declaring my stance and telling about enviromental problems caused. He asks me how it helps them if we stay protectionist. I need economical help on this subject. Enviromentally I have a sound arguement, but that doesn't carry over to economics or the real standard of living.

Any arguements will be read with pleasure.

[Todd D.]

Economically there are very few advantages to remaining protectionist. The only short sited one that I can think of would be domestic jobs would continue to stay here in America. What this fails to realize is taht while workers continue to stay employed, prices remain high. If those jobs went to places were employment costs were lower, those lower prices would be transferred to the consumer, something that helps, not hinders, the economy.

[clownboy]

Well, sounds like he snookered you by limiting the options, NAFTA or protectionism. What happenned to the solution that has historically worked - bilateral trade agreements. One to one, we'll trade with you on these ageed upon conditions conditions.

[Boris]

Well, sounds like he snookered you by limiting the options, NAFTA or protectionism. What happenned to the solution that has historically worked - bilateral trade agreements. One to one, we'll trade with you on these ageed upon conditions conditions.

Can you elaborate for me a Bilateral Trade Agreement?

[clownboy]

This should be a good starting point for you to see examples of bilateral trade, as opposed to multi-lateral and free trade.

[QatzelOk]

Economically there are very few advantages to remaining protectionist. The only short sited one that I can think of would be domestic jobs would continue to stay here in America. What this fails to realize is taht while workers continue to stay employed, prices remain high. If those jobs went to places were employment costs were lower, those lower prices would be transferred to the consumer, something that helps, not hinders, the economy.

An interesting economic theory indeed. So by exporting jobs to Honduras or Haiti, and paying these workers 15 cents an hour to slave away for Wal-Mart, and by eliminating all those wasteful medium skilled jobs in America, the American consumer is better off. Question: Who is this American consumer that everyone else is supposed to sacrifice their livelihood for? I want to meet then and shake their hand [tentacle?] for fooling so many so often with sloppy economics.

[smashthestate]

Economically there are very few advantages to remaining protectionist.

Try... NO ADVANTAGES!

An interesting economic theory indeed. So by exporting jobs to Honduras or Haiti, and paying these workers 15 cents an hour to slave away for Wal-Mart, and by eliminating all those wasteful medium skilled jobs in America, the American consumer is better off.

That's a very one-sided way of looking at it. Of course if you ask any American what he thinks about working conditions in Honduras or Haiti, they will say it is terrible and wrong.

However, go take a trip to those countries, and ask the actual workers in those factories. See what they have to say about "slaving away." Why do you think so many of the locals go to these factories to work? They must all be masochists, right?

They work there because it is a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

Question: Who is this American consumer that everyone else is supposed to sacrifice their livelihood for?

Who sacrifices their livelihood? The American who lost his shoe-making job? Let's see what would happen if we did use protectionism to protect his job.

First of all, the U.S. would raise tariff levies on any foreign imported shoes, thus preserving the market-bottom price of American-made shoes. However, this price has been artificially inflated, making this market artificially profitable. This will mean that eager capitalists will flock to this now super-profitable market more than they would invest in other markets had the tariff levies not existed.

Also, let's not forget the effects of pricing. Now instead of paying $60 for a pair of shoes, the jobs in the U.S. have been preserved and everyone, including the workers in the shoe factory, are now paying $100 for a pair of shoe. Now they have $40 less to spend on the other necessities and pleasures of life.

I want to meet then and shake their hand [tentacle?] for fooling so many so often with sloppy economics.

No, protectionism is sloppy economics, not the other way around.

[QatzelOk]

It must be hard to type with such big tentacles.
So foreigners working for 15 cents an hour good because shoes less for America. Okay. Slave workers very grateful to American Corporations. Right. No American would be caught dead making shoes. I see. Foreigners happy to make shoe shine for America, everybody happy. That's why there are no protests anywhere, right Fox viewers?
You know, while I understand that some things are cheaper to make in one place than another because of different environmental conditions [oranges cheaper to grow in Florida than in Greenland], labour is labour is labour. A Haitian equalls one American. Therefore, the movement of capital to take advantage of abysmal working conditions in Third World colonies is not financially justifiable. It is just symptomatic of injustice. Injustice of this kind, like slavery, is only justifiable to the hypercapitalists who are the root cause of most of the world's problems. Wake up, working class America. You're just the next Haiti.

[smashthestate]

QatzelOk, your concerns are based largely on emotion, and almost not at all on economic law.

First off, consider one consequence of corporations having to pay third-world workers the same wages that American workers get. You'd basically have what amounts to a bunch of millionaires running around in Cambodia, India, China, etc. This would cause absolute and total economic collapse for several decades at least, in order to recover from the massive influx of money being rapidly introduced into the local economy. The actual dollar cost of living a first-world lifestyle in those third world countries is frighteningly less. For example, someone in the United States can survive easily enough on anywhere from $40,000 to $50,000 per year. However, in a place like Cambodia, India, or China, to live the exact same lifestyle or very close, it may only take less than $1000 per year, depending on what region they live in.

Secondly, even if we did pay them American wages, most still couldn't enjoy a first-world lifestyle simply because the goods and services that are considered first-world simply aren't readily available in those third-world nations. It's not like you can just give some Cambodian living in a slum $50,000 a year and expect him to live in a nice house, drive a nice car, own a television, a computer, etc. in that same year. It just isn't realistic.

Capital development takes a long time. Just look at the U.S. during the 19th century. Back then, the U.S., compared to the rest of the world in that century, was still a first-world nation. Living standards were as good or better than the leading nations of that century in the U.S. However, compare those standards to today's standards and you would call it an injustice wouldn't you? Of course you would.

It is logistically impossible to export the first-world lifestyle into third-world countries overnight, over a year, or even over a decade. How long did it take even the first-world countries to reach this standard of living? It took over one hundred and fifty years.

[QatzelOk]

I'm not in favour of exporting 'First World' consumption patterns to the Third World. I'm in favour of narrowing that gap considerably. And of changing the First World's predatorial relationship to resources both natural and human ones.
So paying the poor horrible salaries, and then bombing them into submission when they dare disagree with your perfect economic model doesn't seem very productive.
Otherwise, paying Arkansas people 15 cents an hour would work as well as paying Haitans or Bengladeshis this salary.
Do they really need electricity in Arkansas? They don't even have winter.

[Noumenon]

QatzlOk: What would happen if we forced corporations to pay third world workers the same amount as first world workers? The corporations would pack up and leave, because then there would be no advantage to building a factory over there. How is that a good thing? The third world workers all lose their jobs.