- 06 Jul 2020 15:36
#15105588
I think you're using a lot of *mythology* here, because trade is never going to be 'even keel' between an imperialist power, and a colonized one. Obviously the wealthier party has far more choice over who to purchase from, and better access to a range of competitive market pricing. A *developing* country *has* to sell their product, because of relatively more economic duress, and it does not have the luxury of shopping-it-around to many prospective buyers.
I'll invoke the example of South Sudan, a new country artificially carved out of Sudan, just for the oil reserves on that particular geography. What good does that do for (original) Sudan? It's just a land grab, something that you can't factor into a presumably 'neutral' economic exchange among presumably autonomous nation-states.
When do you think that 'free trade' *began*, 'quite recently'? How was international trade done *before* this economic development? Do you acknowledge historic imperialism and colonialism at all?
This is as far from 'free markets' as it can possibly get -- you're more in favor of a *command economy*, as we have with Trump? (tariffs, sanctions, etc.)
Local Localist wrote:
Well, clearly we have fundamentally different positions on this, so I don't think it's useful going any further. I don't see how you could honestly make the argument that free trade has led to the wealth disparities between the West and other parts of the world, because it has not been truly practiced until quite recently. Outsourcing jobs from developed countries to poorer countries allows those poorer countries to generate money to reinvest into its standard of living. This happened in the United States, this happened in South Korea and Taiwan, this is happening in underdeveloped areas of China and the rest of Asia now. Yes, it will take a very long time in certain places, such as the entirety of Subsaharan Africa, however I don't see how depriving workers of their ability to sell goods in wealthier markets which are beyond the point of needing to produce those goods is a better alternative.
I think you're using a lot of *mythology* here, because trade is never going to be 'even keel' between an imperialist power, and a colonized one. Obviously the wealthier party has far more choice over who to purchase from, and better access to a range of competitive market pricing. A *developing* country *has* to sell their product, because of relatively more economic duress, and it does not have the luxury of shopping-it-around to many prospective buyers.
I'll invoke the example of South Sudan, a new country artificially carved out of Sudan, just for the oil reserves on that particular geography. What good does that do for (original) Sudan? It's just a land grab, something that you can't factor into a presumably 'neutral' economic exchange among presumably autonomous nation-states.
When do you think that 'free trade' *began*, 'quite recently'? How was international trade done *before* this economic development? Do you acknowledge historic imperialism and colonialism at all?
Local Localist wrote:
Well, I might propose export quotas, or reverse tariffs, if you will, which would tax exports of particular unrefined resources to disincentivise this.
This is as far from 'free markets' as it can possibly get -- you're more in favor of a *command economy*, as we have with Trump? (tariffs, sanctions, etc.)