Political Crossfire Forums

The problem with Free Trade is that it exploits populations on both sides of a given national border by taking advantages of social inequity between the developed and developing world. One of the major negative effects of this is to set up a vast incentive to perpetuate social inequity in our national as well as global economic and political structures because it guarantees benefits for financial actors that far exceeds the cost of their investment. Thus neo-liberalism is an anti-progressive and reactionary doctrine.

My question is why should working populations on either side of any border tolerate such a situation? One solution I see being imposed if true democracy can be reinstated would be to institute a global guaranteed minimum income for every person on the planet. Not a high income but one that would allow survival relative to locale and access to adequate health care for every individual on the planet.

One justification for this would be that a capitalist economy takes some value from all, by imposing externalities on all and in the case of the developing world the situation is simply untenable as it is basically wholesale theft of resources from non-technological populations by technological ones.

Thus these externalities have to be exposed to a full and true accounting and adequate compensation rendered to the populations that make this state of affairs possible. Anything less is mismanagement, a failure to provide proper administration, and a breach of fiduciary responsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter-globalization

Toby from the west wing pretty much nailed it as far as Free Trade

Toby Ziegler: You want to know the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper.
Officer Rhonda Sachs: Yes.
Toby Ziegler: Food is cheaper! Clothes are cheaper. Steel is cheaper. Cars are cheaper. Phone service is cheaper. You feel me building a rhythm here? That's because I'm a speech writer - I know how to make a point.
Officer Rhonda Sachs: Toby...
Toby Ziegler: It lowers prices, it raises income. You see what I did with 'lowers' and 'raises' there?
Officer Rhonda Sachs: Yes.
Toby Ziegler: It's called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites, and now you end with the one that's not like the others. Ready? Free trade stops wars. Heh, and that's it. Free trade stops wars! And we figure out a way to fix the rest. One world, one peace - I'm sure I've seen that on a sign somewhere.
Officer Rhonda Sachs: [sarcastic] God, Toby. Wouldn't it be great if there was someone around with the communication skills who could go in there and tell them that?
Toby Ziegler: [beat] Shut up.

"Free Trade" doesn't stop war, it requires war. The threat and application of force is how we convince other peoples to trade with us on terms advantageous to our interests.

You realize that is why Free Trade makes for less expensive products, right? What do you think we are doing over there, actually fighting bad guys and making the world safe for democracy? No, we are militarily and economically dominating the planet, and pretending to ourselves like we are doing the world a favor while we do it.

It's disgusting really.

Beats mercantilism, which is the only other system I'm aware of because I rarely paid attention in school.

I'm exhausted by this conversation.

Well pimpin' ain't easy

we don't really have free trade Dharma, just updated mercantilism.

watched Dallas Buyers Club last night, pretty much says it all.

agreed

We should implement this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

the result would be far better

The term "fair trade" is one I mostly hear in reference to coffee beans at trendy cafes in Manhattan. But apparently fair trade is soooo 2010. Direct trade is the cool thing now.