Free trade unchecked

[Kire]

One thing I often hear from right wingers is "I'm a Republican because I believe in free trade, and not giving the government my taxes." In fact, the "I believe in free trade" answer is the most common answer to "do you think we should raise the minimum wage." Use those bootstraps, ya lazy Americans! Nevermind that the rich have structured the system to make sure that's highly improbable.

But seriously, one of the reasons I lean left on the political spectrum is that free trade gone unchecked almost seems more dangerous than a government gone unchecked. Didn't the days of Rockafeller and the railroad barons teach us that? One thing my life has taught me, meeting people of all socio-economic backgrounds, is that the gap between the rich and the poor is HUGE. I've had too many friends struggle and scrape to get by, and seen too many of my relatives skimp on school and get high paying jobs based on their bloodline. It's absolutely sickening.

I've been accused of being a communist when I suggest that there should be some sort of control when it comes to how much executives can make, and limiting or taxing the richest 10% to benefit the rest of the nation. 95% of the richest 10% DID NOT work for their money. Of course there are acceptions to the rule, but if it were limited, they would still be a hell of a lot better off than the rest of us.

Power gone unchecked is never a good thing, whether it's government or business. This may sound like I'm oversimplifying it, but I'm trying to keep the gist of this post short.

What do you guys think when it comes to the free market today?

[Shard]

Re: Free trade unchecked

"The free market" as the general populace understands it, is nothing more than a slogan. If we had a truly free market (something that has never existed) you'd witness the collapse of several major industries, which would send our economy spiralling into a depression.

I believe, and I think history bears this out, that some controls are needed, but there's a point where regulation does more harm than good as well. Where that point is varies greatly between industries, and even between businesses within each industry.

Most of the time, when I hear someone talking about "free trade" their agenda is more along the lines of..."I should be able to operate my business as I see fit with no input from the government, but if I run my business into the ground, or someone else comes along and does it better, the government should have to bail me out."

[JPS]

Re: Free trade unchecked

As far a minimum wage is concerned, it should be raised, you cannot support yourself on $5.15 an hour, if you have a full time job you get $824/month, and thats BEFORE taxes, if you claim single they usually take about 35% taxes out, which leaves you a measly $536/month, wayyyy to little to support yourself.

I suggest raising it to around $7.35, thats $1176 and after taxes its $765, a little better but not much

Right now Im making $11.37 with overtime after 34 hours, my bi-weekly paycheck is around $900 after taxes, I can barely get by with $1800 a month, but I also have a wife(who doesnt work), car payment, and a 2 year old and a 2 month old

[Pandable]

Re: Free trade unchecked

I lean to the right as free trade goes, but not in a republican sense. The whole capitalist ideal came about largely due to the french revolution - which, while liberal at the time, sewed the seeds for modern republican conservatism. I'm conservative in a pre-french revolution sort of way, and think that finances should be dictated by the government, not by the people. Free trade just doesn't work, and without a class system, businessmen and bankers will always be able to rise above their social status and get positions of importance in the government.

The problem being that for the most part, knowing about money doesn't enable you automaticly to know how to govern.

The financial section in Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" explains this better than I am right now.

[Shard]

Re: Free trade unchecked

I lean to the right as free trade goes, but not in a republican sense. The whole capitalist ideal came about largely due to the french revolution - which, while liberal at the time, sewed the seeds for modern republican conservatism. I'm conservative in a pre-french revolution sort of way, and think that finances should be dictated by the government, not by the people. Free trade just doesn't work, and without a class system, businessmen and bankers will always be able to rise above their social status and get positions of importance in the government.

The problem being that for the most part, knowing about money doesn't enable you automaticly to know how to govern.

The financial section in Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" explains this better than I am right now.

I'm afraid I have to take issue with a few things here. Firstly, Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations in 1776, a good decade before the French Revultion that began in 1789. The Wealth of Nations is the cornerstone on which Classical Economics and the idea of laissez-faire were founded and popularized. You could call this the birth of "free trade" in any sort of coherent, conceptual form. This was the crystallization of a lot of ideas that had been floating around for the better part of the 18th century and many, many conversations/shared writings between Adam Smith and David Hume, another significant Classical economist.

Neo-classicals, of which the recently expired Milton Friedman is most notable although Alan Greenspan (former long-time Chairman of The Fed) would also fit into this mold, have pretty much set the agenda for U.S. economic policy for the past 60 years.

If you were conservative in a pre-French Revolution way you'd be on the side of landed aristocracy. From the description of your political beliefs, I'd be more inclined to call you socialist in the 19th century context, or possibly anarchist on a bad day.

[Pandable]

Re: Free trade unchecked

I'm afraid I have to take issue with a few things here. Firstly, Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations in 1776, a good decade before the French Revultion that began in 1789. The Wealth of Nations is the cornerstone on which Classical Economics and the idea of laissez-faire were founded and popularized. You could call this the birth of "free trade" in any sort of coherent, conceptual form. This was the crystallization of a lot of ideas that had been floating around for the better part of the 18th century and many, many conversations/shared writings between Adam Smith and David Hume, another significant Classical economist.

Yeah, I realize all of what you just said. What I should have said (I was in a bit of a rush) is that modern republicans are the direct inheritors of the french revolution, other than the whole "dechristianization" thing. The french revolution, during the reign of terror, degenerated largely into a plutocratic form of government dominated by the "new rich" - those who made their money from controlling the markets. This is exactly what we have now, rule by those who have money; not by those who have a pedigree.

If you were conservative in a pre-French Revolution way you'd be on the side of landed aristocracy. From the description of your political beliefs, I'd be more inclined to call you socialist in the 19th century context, or possibly anarchist on a bad day.

For the most part, I'm on the side of aristocracy, but only to a degree - I'd prefer we not go as far as autocracy, and we definately need constitutional checks and balances. There's a lot of problems with passing positions on via lineage (namely the whole problem of irresponsibility), and I understand that, but I'd rather pass it on through linage than by popular vote.

Regardless, such tradition of lineage gives stability to government, whereas an electorate does not.

A government polarized into parties will never be unified, and will simply tear the nation apart while trying to elect leaders - who, in a democracy, have to become mass-manipulators and pander to their fanbase while confusing everyone with hyper-focus on unimportant issues.

Non-traditional governments are also more prone to being infiltrated by lobbyists who pay money to get their ideas across - lobbyists directly stemming from the merchant class, the "new rich" which came to power in the french revolution. Via traditional government, the merchant class is kept out of politics - which is a good thing. People that have training in business tend to see politics as mechanistic - as a simple equation to be manipulated. There's a lot more to it than that.

I am to a degree socialist, however, simply because I can't get on board with the notion that people are poor because they deserve it/God made them that way/ whatever other BS people spew. It's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens - ALL of its citizens. However, Socialism doesn't require giving up private property - which is crucial to maintaining balance in a government, especially a government from the top down.

As a side note, I'm also deeply ecologicly minded, and I think that protection of the environment ties in nicely to the exclusion of the merchant class from politics via traditional systems of government.


I know you'll take issue with this, too, but whatever.

[Caciss]

Re: Free trade unchecked

Free trade just doesn't work,

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[Sampson]

Re: Free trade unchecked

But seriously, one of the reasons I lean left on the political spectrum is that free trade gone unchecked almost seems more dangerous than a government gone unchecked. Didn't the days of Rockafeller and the railroad barons teach us that?

No, they didn't. The railroad barons were not running unchecked, the government was activly helping them.
Government backing big business is not free trade.

95% of the richest 10% DID NOT work for their money.

I find that hard to believe. Can I see the proof?

Power gone unchecked is never a good thing, whether it's government or business.

And a government that had a great deal of control over the market would not have power unchecked?

I understand that, but I'd rather pass it on through linage than by popular vote.

Well it's a good thing that you don't have any say in our government. I think the past 200 hundred years of philosphical writing and political movements would tend to disagree.

Regardless, such tradition of lineage gives stability to government, whereas an electorate does not.

That's why there are virtually none left? Right?

A government polarized into parties will never be unified, and will simply tear the nation apart while trying to elect leaders

And yet the most powerful nation on earth has had a successful democratic process for the past 200+ years.


Whoever controls the money controls the power. "Traditional" governments were only viable when economies were on a mostly local scale. The rise of global economies and hence the larger, richer merchant class brought on the American and French revolutions--which ultimately led to an end of all "traditional" governments.
The problem with your theory Aznable is that you can't have an upper ruling class AND a merchant class that is richer than the ruling class unless they are one and the same. If the merchant is richer they will automaticly be more powerful by virtue of their money. It is human nature.

[Red Dragon]

Re: Free trade unchecked

I've been accused of being a communist when I suggest that there should be some sort of control when it comes to how much executives can make.

Communisim isn't a bad thing (I'm guessing using the word "accused" they, or you think it is a bad thing), so them accusing you of being one really isn't bad. It's the fact that it's never been executed properly is why it gets such a bad name for itself.

[Pandable]

Re: Free trade unchecked

Well it's a good thing that you don't have any say in our government. I think the past 200 hundred years of philosphical writing and political movements would tend to disagree.

Well, it's a good thing I want nothing to do with all this "rights of man" BS and the last 200 years of philosophical writing, huh? Did I ever imply that I cared about modern writing? Moreover, is an idea automaticly superior simply because it is new? I'd argue that quite the opposite is true.

That's why there are virtually none left? Right?

I think you missed my point here. Democracy is unstable. When people are going through positions every 4-8-12 years (pick one, I don't care), there will be NO stability in the government. Passing government on through lineage (which admittedly, has a lot of problems), or ideally passing it on by having leaders appoint their successors (which should work a lot better, and is generally termed Meritocracy) creates stability because the general population knows what to expect: they don't have to worry about the spin on the issues, or ballot recounts, or any of that.. because government goes in a heirarchy, an order.

There are no "traditions" left in government because revolutionary idiots went and killed all the politicians to whom they owed their lives.

And yet the most powerful nation on earth has had a successful democratic process for the past 200+ years.

Have we? To be honest, we really haven't. I've been doing research for one of my senior projects on voting in rural areas from 1840-1950, and have found that for the most part, parties in control forged the vote (at least in rural areas, I can't speak for cities) by paying for the votes of migrant workers with whiskey or money, by allowing dead people to vote, and in worst case scenerios, by keeping pieces of the official ballot pencil under their fingernails - so they could mark an X next to the opposition candidtate while they count the votes. In doing so, they'd invalidate the ballot since it would be cast for more than one candidate.

Yeah, real democratic there.

[Red Dragon]

Re: Free trade unchecked

Before we get into any flame wars about democracy. Remember that this topic is about Economics. Although yes, they have somwhat of a tie-in together, I think we would all appreciate it not going into a flame war. Or just a whole off-topic debate.

[Pandable]

Re: Free trade unchecked

Yeah, I agree.
I'm trying my hardest to be civil, and I think the discussion has some relevence at least to the topic at hand, but if more red herrings are dragged into this and things sink below debate level and into pure flame war level, I'm locking this.

[Sampson]

Re: Free trade unchecked

So let me get this straight, your theory Azn, is basicly that all nations should have a central monarch leader who makes all the decisions and gets to select his successor. This may be crude, but its the best I can make of your statements.

You believe that the advantages this system would have over republic/democratic systems is that the general populace would be better served by a more stable government.

Well my first question is with your asumption, why is a more stable government neccessarly a better one? What if per say, the ruler became mentally insane? Or made decisions that were down right horrendous? (Ex: Nero, Caligula, etc.) I'm sure you don't support George Bush's policies, so heres a question closer to home--what if George W Bush was the lifetime leader of this nation and was allowed to appoint his successor? Your theory seems to break down in situations where the theoretical ruler is in fact non-benevolant, which is 99% of the time.

Secondly, what leads you to believe that a so called "traditional" government is more stable anyway? I would actually like to advance the arguement that democracies and republics are in fact more stable. The beauty of elected leaders is that they can be switched out easily. Life time rulers will seldom aknowledge their mistakes or gracefully abdicate their thrones. The only way to rid the country of an ill-liked dynasty is through civil war, which usually installs a new government composed of the extreme polar opposite. So the question I pose to you then is what is really more stable--a government that rules mostly the same for 100-150 years only to have its reign cut short by a violent and bloody revolt and its posistions changed 180 degrees, or a government which makes minor 30 degree peaceful alterations in its policies every 20?

Now, you're probably saying that I've got you all wrong--you don't think violent revolutions are justified. But when the government is so constructed as to prevent any altertations in its policies except through bloody conflict, bloody conflict will inevitably occur because the government will not always be in the right. Thus, any advocate of a system that is concrete must take inevitable revolutions into mind.

I've been doing research for one of my senior projects on voting in rural areas from 1840-1950, and have found that for the most part, parties in control forged the vote (at least in rural areas, I can't speak for cities) by paying for the votes of migrant workers with whiskey or money, by allowing dead people to vote, and in worst case scenerios, by keeping pieces of the official ballot pencil under their fingernails - so they could mark an X next to the opposition candidtate while they count the votes. In doing so, they'd invalidate the ballot since it would be cast for more than one candidate.

That is moot. Perhaps these examples happened, or perhaps they didn't. Either way no one can argue that there weren't dramatic political shifts in that 90 year span. So even if votes were forged, the people doing the forging must've done a pretty poor job.

I'm not trying to flame whatsoever. I'm merely asking questions since you've only argued your side a priori. Please, provide examples or some other such reasoning as to why you disagree with nearly all political thought of the modern era?

[hitogoroshi]

Re: Free trade unchecked

Alright, lemme pull some AP history into this.
George Washington was against political parties. But John Adams was a Federalist. The people, without any hesitation, formed a party. We've lived with this goverment all our lives, and I think it says a lot that a party was almost immediatly formed when we got democracy.
However, in this discussion the rise of the Federalist party is not nearly as important as it's fall. John Adams was the only Federalist president. They had a steady decline and ultimantly fell when they told us to surrender in the War of 1812 and we turned it into a tie (and, as we ended with a huge victory at New Orleans, it felt like a win.) Then, on his way out of the White House, John Adams appointed dozens of Federalists to judical positions, the most significant being Supreme Court Justice John Marshall.
Now, think about it. The country went through a lot of change very rapidly: but John Marshall, a Federalist, held views that were for the most point politically extinct the moment he was swore in. He served dozens of years as Supreme Court Justice, in fact, the civil war came shortly after his death.
Federalists, being northerners, generally had few or no slaves but had absolutely NO stance regarding slavery. If John Marshall had been King instead of Supreme Court Justice all those years, how much longer would we have had slavery?
The party system is a wonderful thing. It stops issues from being swept under the carpet: when minor parties take stances on issues major parties ignore, it sends things into a flux that can change the two parties leading the system.