pull down to refresh
141 sats \ 15 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 21 May \ parent \ on: The Strange Moral Relativism of "Free Trade" econ
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.
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?
reply
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.
reply
I can choose to not buy CCP subsidized products
The interesting question is whether that is even helping the person you're concerned about. When we defend "sweat shops", the argument is generally that the workers in those facilities chose to work there because it was their best option.
I think it's Sowell who had the great line about how you don't help the poor by taking away their options.
reply
Yes, sometimes the only way they can avoid starvation is by working in a sweatshop. I think Sowell made this observation about child labor in third world countries. If the child has no opportunity to work for the intermediate good, money, he cannot buy the food to maintain life. So, by denying child labor are we inadvertently killing children?
How do you think the subsidies will affect the Chinese economy in the long run? I think the subsidies distort the economy so greatly that there is a lot of wastage and malinvestment. For instance, the ghost cities where they are destroying vast apartment complexes because they are rotting as they stand empty are a good example of malinvestments. And, just to think, they have whole ghost cities like that!
reply
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.
reply
The problem is that all the Chinese people have are poisoned apples, because they aren't allowed to produce regular ones. I don't see how the just outcome is for them to not be allowed to trade, within the parameters they're confined too.
It's really tricky.
reply
The way I think about it is that the Chinese people (not the CCP members) are involved in either slavery or involuntary servitude and cannot escape. Now the point for me is whether we should punish them all or not by not trading with them. I have had prior experience with mass punishment and despise it, so I have troubles with the mass punishment idea. They have to free themselves and we cannot really help them in that, can we? BTW, I have had close contact with Chinese from China and do not trust a word they say, but I suspect that they were CCP Princes not everyday people. The common people seem to be much different.