pull down to refresh
38 sats \ 17 replies \ @optimism 19 May \ parent \ on: The Strange Moral Relativism of "Free Trade" econ
What is a market other than the running product of supplier and consumer decisions though?
I know I'm looking at this way too pragmatically but assuming that we aim for as-free-as-possible trade, what tools are there other than (a) being the change, or (b) influencing people?
The point is that taxes and subsidies aren’t market mechanisms, so “free trade” with such regimes is not inherently free enterprise.
I don’t even know what I’d want to persuade anyone to do about this, short of convincing the CCP to knock it off.
reply
Isn’t trade done by individuals that make rational decisions to gain (on both sides) by making that trade? If it is individuals making the decisions then it is a free market, isn’t it? If it the individuals making the decisions they would take into account everything they thought important, wouldn’t they?
I don’t think you have to persuade the CCP to “knock it off” because if they continue, they will crash their economy with bad decisions and malinvestments. Then they can start over as the people desire.
reply
If you're getting a great deal on what you know to be stolen goods, isn't something other than free trade going on?
reply
Yes, something else, criminal, is going on. Do you know, beforehand, that the goods are stolen, if so, you are part of the crime and therefore a criminal. I won’t even go into a pawn shop because I do not know the providence of the goods in the shop.
And, yes, it is something else than free trade, it is fencing of stolen goods. If you get caught, you get treated much the same as the thief. I guess you are saying that anything subsidized is the product of theft, then, right? Wow, that would make any agricultural product from here a product of theft, too.
reply
We know that beforehand subsidies were given. That's the analogy.
reply
Yes, I understand that completely. It is why I object to subsidies for any person or company. It also has the effect of screwing up the investments in the rest of the economy that wants different goods than the subsidized ones. But, of course, the state and its operators know better than us, don’t they?
I'd say that's not an action against free trade but one against NAP (indirectly, by rewarding aggression against someone else's property).
Free trade is the whole, a system.Perhaps the fact that free trade also works for stolen goods is a feature and not a bug? Just like it is for Bitcoin?
PS: thanks for keeping this discussion alive
reply
Perhaps the fact that free trade also works for stolen goods is a feature and not a bug?
That's the part I'm working through, too. We can't stop the CCP from robbing ordinary Chinese people and giving handouts to their favored industries. So, given that violation has happened, is it still best to proceed as though those industries came by their resources honestly? It might be.
However, I am convinced that this statement is morally perverse, when applied to subsidized industries: "If they want to sell us stuff below cost, that's great."
reply
is it still best to proceed as though those industries came by their resources honestly?
I've seen some pretty disturbing videos about exploitation of labor in primary resource extraction in Asia and Africa. IMHO this is the far bigger problem from a humanitarian perspective.
I am convinced that this statement is morally perverse
I agree with you that it is, but there's another system that goes hand in hand with free trade, and that is free will. And I think the latter is a prerequisite for the former. However it means that I can choose to not buy CCP subsidized products (even for the ones I listed initially - I'd just have to figure out another way to go about my security.) I know many people that principally "buy fair trade", "buy American" and nowadays even "buy European" (thanks to Mr. Vance's verbal abuse - the fallout may be tough long term.)
Bottom line: it is still rational for me to not buy the cheapest product because there are more dimensions than just price. CCP subsidies ultimately effect just that: you can compete, just not on price.
I have troubles with this idea, too. The way I look at it is that fruit from the poisoned tree is still poison. In other words, the subsidized goods are like stolen goods because they would not be selling as they are without the wherewithal to do it, when said wherewithal is taxes (stolen goods). The state should get out of the economy, completely and not be allowed to operate within it.