Is Trade Better than Transfers?

[August1991]

Leftists think that to improve the world, the "rich" must give to the "poor"".

People on the Right think that to improve the world, people should be "free".

-----

Life is not simple, not black and white; it's a shade of grey. But when push comes to shove, when you are forced to choose, what do you think? To make the world a better place:

Should we make trade, contacts between people, easier?

Or, should we take from some and help others?

[Moonlight Graham]

Leftists think that to improve the world, the "rich" must give to the "poor"".

People on the Right think that to improve the world, people should be "free".

This is an oversimplification IMO. International development is a complex subject, and both the "left" and "right" need to study the facts and the case studies of different countries in their development to see what works and what doesn't.

Simply giving foreign aid is quite helpful in many ways, but also leads to aid dependency, corruption by recipient governments, and almost always comes with "strings attached" that benefits the donor country as much as the recipient (ie: structural adjustment packages).

The idea of letting "people be free" to improve their lot led to neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus of the 1980's and 90's, which in a great many developing countries actually reversed or stifled their development progress.

There are a number of significant examples, such as South Korea/Singapore/China etc, where strong government-directed policies (in proper ways) helped steer their own countries towards fantastic economic improvement.

To answer your title question, yes I believe trade is far better than aid. The problem though is that rich western/developed states impose unfair/lopsided terms of trade on developing countries because it benefits the rich economies, and that trumps any concern for the welfare of people in poorer countries. Companies in richer countries also exploit workers and resources in development countries for profits. Even though it may lead to increased prices for consumer goods, voters in developed countries need to demand that their governments keep more balanced trade policies with developing countries and give their people a fair shake and reduce the need for aid. Consumers must also be more aware of the products they buy and how they came to be made and if this is ethical.

The disturbing fact is that people in developed countries like Canada enjoy such a high standard of living because prices of goods are kept low by exploiting workers, resources, and governments in developing countries for our benefit. If Chung Lo in China made $5 an hour on the assembly line in a factory with what any westerner would deem decent working conditions our goods would cost significantly more.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Leftists think that to improve the world, the "rich" must give to the "poor"".

People on the Right think that to improve the world, people should be "free".

:lol:

What a way to start a thread.

[cybercoma]

Yeah. Just drop briefcases with unmarked bills in them in poor neighbourhoods. The rest will pan out.

What an absurd oversimplification of the left.

[eyeball]

Leftists think that to improve the world, the "rich" must give to the "poor"".

People on the Right think that to improve the world, people should be "free".

Then why are so many right-wingers so supportive of supporting dictators?

Life is not simple, not black and white; it's a shade of grey. But when push comes to shove, when you are forced to choose, what do you think? To make the world a better place:

Should we make trade, contacts between people, easier?

Or, should we take from some and help others?

We should always put virtue ahead of economics including trade. Sorry but it really is or should be that black and white. The only other colour you add when the latter comes first is red.

You get lots of hate too lots and lots of hate, a world full of it at such a horrific cost.

[August1991]

Yeah. Just drop briefcases with unmarked bills in them in poor neighbourhoods. The rest will pan out.

What an absurd oversimplification of the left.

But if you think of the OWS movement and the 1/99 perspective of the world, it amounts to the idea that the rich are getting too much and the poor (the rest of us) too little.

:lol:

What a way to start a thread.

I agree that I have simplified but, when push comes to shove, how is the OP wrong?

The Right generally believes that individuals should be "Free". OTOH, "individual freedom" is fine if you are beautiful, smart, talented, confident, physically agile.

The Left generally argues that we should make the world more "fair": The rich and beautiful should give to the poor and ugly.

This, in essence, is the debate.

Then why are so many right-wingers so supportive of supporting dictators?

Right-wingers generally don't support dictators. Thatcher and Reagan were not "dictators". Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were all left-wingers, and dictators.

As to people such as Lee Kuan Yew and Augusto Pinochet (typically identified as right-wing and dictators), I suppose that some believe to have individual freedom (the freedom to transact freely), a socity must guarantee security and property rights.

We should always put virtue ahead of economics including trade. Sorry but it really is or should be that black and white.

What do you mean by "virtue"? If you put virtue ahead of trade, then I assume that you put "fairness" ahead of "individual freedom". Edited December 28, 2011 by August1991

[eyeball]

Right-wingers generally don't support dictators.

They'll generally say that alright but all the same so many, far too many, right-wingers are very supportive of the support and especially military aid that their governments and leaders give to dictators.

A quick look at many a thread in this forum reveals case after case after case of right-wingers shamelessly if not proudly defending to the nth degree our alliances with dictators like Saddam Hussein, or the Shah of Iran, or Hosni Mubarek or Augusto Pinochet and even Joseph Stalin himself.

What do you mean by "virtue"? If you put virtue ahead of trade, then I assume that you put "fairness" ahead of "individual freedom".

Well, you know what they say about assuming.

Edited December 28, 2011 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

But if you think of the OWS movement and the 1/99 perspective of the world, it amounts to the idea that the rich are getting too much and the poor (the rest of us) too little.

That's your opinion, I guess. What OWS is really about is that the 1% have a disproportionate amount of political power in a country that is supposed to be democratic. One person, one vote. Meanwhile, lobbyists and corporate interests stack the deck by making it so that you vote for crony A or crony B. Their politicians then create laws that help them to the detriment of everyone else.

The trickle-down tax cuts do not work. Full-stop. It has been shown over and over again in studies that the money never trickles down. What happens with tax cuts to the lower income brackets, however, is that money indeed trickles up because they spend a greater proportion of their income. Thus, trickle-up economics would be a better system where the money-spending public democratically chooses what products and services it wants with its money. Companies that give people what they want will get more revenues regardless of their tax rate.

However, the system as it is now is supposed to provide equal opportunity for people. The research indicates that social mobility is a myth. Your father's position in the economic hierarchy over 90% of the time will be your position in the hierarchy. Meanwhile, the income gap is widening and I've already posted in the federal politics forum on how detrimental a greater income gap within a society is for that society. Those problems do not just affect those at the bottom of the gap, but everyone within that society.

So OWS is not particularly concerned about the rich having too much money, but the fact that wealth is being concentrated at the top and that wealth means power. The studies that show trickle-down doesn't work indicate that it stays there. Moreover, those against OWS have argued that the top 1% doesn't just include corporations but private individuals. Those individuals are not trickling down that additional income into infrastructure and jobs. Yet, these individuals continue to influence policies that allow them to accumulate a higher proportion of the economic growth. I shouldn't have to tell you how troubling it is that the top 1% keeps the vast majority of economic gains for themselves (see also: https://motherjones.com/files/averagehouseholdincome.jpg). It's not that the rich are richer. Nobody is arguing that they shouldn't be. The problem is quite simply that the rich are getting richer at a highly disproportionate rate to the other income groups. The gap is growing and that is highly problematic. Since wealth is tied directly to political power, those below the gap are being disenfranchised.

[dre]

agree that I have simplified but, when push comes to shove, how is the OP wrong?

The Right generally believes that individuals should be "Free". OTOH, "individual freedom" is fine if you are beautiful, smart, talented, confident, physically agile.

You characterize the right and left by how you WANT to see them, not how they really are. Your narrative is simply not accurate. Try taking a look at the most conservative and liberal countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is probably the most conservative, and Sweden is probably the most liberal. Visit them and come back with a report!

The reality is that both sides of the political spectrum pay a lot of lip service to "freedom", mostly because its a very powerful political slogan. But both sides will gladly throw freedom under the bus to achieve various idealogic goals.

Take a look back at the history of the west, and all the initiatives that made people generally more free. Who fought for them... who fought against them (civil rights, removing the church as a civil authority, etc etc).

The Left generally argues that we should make the world more "fair": The rich and beautiful should give to the poor and ugly.

The left believes that the rich should pay more taxes maybe, but that has nothing to do with "giving" anything to anyone. The reality is that society is essentially a transactional framework and the vast majority of government activity is oriented around prosperity and growth. Wealthy people benefit from this framework more than everyone else, so they are expected to pay more, but this is not a leftist concept. And to equate taxes on the wealthy with "freedom" is the ultimate red herring. Without progressive taxation there would be no freedom at all. You would wind up with a monied aristocracy that monopolizes both wealth and political power.

This, in essence, is the debate.

Not really. Because like I said your "debate" is predicated on assertions that have no basis in history and reality.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm disappointed this topic didn't get more responses. Forger the "right vs left" thing in the OP.

Is trade better than transfers for the developing world?

[eyeball]

I'm disappointed this topic didn't get more responses. Forger the "right vs left" thing in the OP.

Is trade better than transfers for the developing world?

If it's conducted unfairly or with bias, no. And that's why it's no good for us.

[Michael Hardner]

Is trade better than transfers for the developing world?

Generally speaking, trade is better because it means the execution of contracts - which is more egalitarian and social then giving charity.

But you don't negotiate with someone who is drowning, either. You give them a life preserver.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

People on the Right think that to improve the world, people should be "free".

Is that a joke?

How is that working out for Somalia, Congo and other near lawless places where everyone is entirely "Free"?

Life is not simple, not black and white;

This statement contradicts your first statements.

When push comes to shove, when you are forced to choose, what do you think? To make the world a better place:

Should we make trade, contacts between people, easier?

Or, should we take from some and help others?

The way this is worded #1. Especially if corporations are abolished, with owners and investors are held accountable for their company.

Edited January 5, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[August1991]

You characterize the right and left by how you WANT to see them, not how they really are. Your narrative is simply not accurate. Try taking a look at the most conservative and liberal countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is probably the most conservative, and Sweden is probably the most liberal. Visit them and come back with a report!

Dre, a polling firm conducted a survey after the last federal election. It focussed on new NDP voters (or voters who had never voted previously NDP in federal elections.)

After the election, pollster Greg Lyle of Innovative Research asked voters the following question: Is the main role of government 1) to create opportunity so that everyone can compete on their own to be the best they can be or 2) to redistribute wealth so that the poor and the disadvantaged have more than they would if left on their own?

Fifty-five per cent of traditional NDP supporters want redistribution, while 58 per cent of new NDPers want equal opportunity, as do 70 per cent of other voters. This is a key difference in values, the fault line at the heart of both the NDP leadership race and the struggle between Liberals and New Democrats.

Montreal Gazette

The pollster's questions states more clearly the point that I was trying to make in my OP. I don't think that I am alone in characterizing the divide this way.

How is that working out for Somalia, Congo and other near lawless places where everyone is entirely "Free"?

Lawless places amount to anarchy. I am no libertarian but even libertarians would say that secure property rights are essential for trade, and freedom.

That's your opinion, I guess. What OWS is really about is that the 1% have a disproportionate amount of political power in a country that is supposed to be democratic. One person, one vote. Meanwhile, lobbyists and corporate interests stack the deck by making it so that you vote for crony A or crony B. Their politicians then create laws that help them to the detriment of everyone else.

That argument makes little sense, cybercoma. How could 1% of the population control a democratic government determined by universal suffrage and 50% + 1?

"... lobbyists and corporate interests stack the deck... " Gimme a break.

If anything, as de Tocqueville pointed out, the danger in a democracy is there will be the tyranny of the majority. Specifically, the poor 50% will vote themselves the legal right to steal from the rich 50%.

Edited January 6, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

I'm disappointed this topic didn't get more responses. Forger the "right vs left" thing in the OP.

Is trade better than transfers for the developing world?

If you want to hijack the thread in that direction, let's go. Haiti and Sri Lanka, to name two examples that have benefitted from large scale transfers over the past 50 years or so, remain impoverished. South Korea and Singapore, to name two other examples, largely chose to trade.

In 1950, these four "countries" were not that far apart in terms of GDP per capita. Nowadays, the difference is striking. Ordinary people in South Korea and Singapore enjoy relatively good lives and they are contributors to the world community.

[cybercoma]

If anything, as de Tocqueville pointed out, the danger in a democracy is there will be the tyranny of the majority. Specifically, the poor 50% will vote themselves the legal right to steal from the rich 50%.

If that were possible, it would have happened by now. Instead it's the exact opposite. The richest 1% have negotiated entitlements that stack the deck in their favour. We're not as bad in Canada yet, but if you look south of the border, they're given a false choice in their federal elections. Obama panders every bit as much to corporate interest and the richest Americans as Bush did before him.

[August1991]

The richest 1% have negotiated entitlements that stack the deck in their favour.

Cybercoma, you might have had a point in 1750 France or even 1820 America. Nowadays, you simply sound like an 1840 Communist.

The democratic revolution has occurred. The "poor/victim" majority can and does vote itself benefits taken from the "rich/dominant" minority.

Edited January 6, 2012 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

If you want to hijack the thread in that direction, let's go.

I didn't hijack your thread. The second part of your OP:

Life is not simple, not black and white; it's a shade of grey. But when push comes to shove, when you are forced to choose, what do you think? To make the world a better place:

Should we make trade, contacts between people, easier?

Or, should we take from some and help others?

Also, is it even possible to hijack a thread that had no new responses in the last week? I saved this sinking ship, not hijacked it!

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, you might have had a point in 1750 France or even 1820 America. Nowadays, you simply sound like an 1840 Communist.

The democratic revolution has occurred. The "poor/victim" majority can and does vote itself benefits taken from the "rich/dominant" minority.

Any "entitlements" that the poor have were only ever implemented as a way for the rich to secure their wealth and the earliest programs were started to keep the socialists from gaining popular favour.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... We're not as bad in Canada yet, but if you look south of the border, they're given a false choice in their federal elections. Obama panders every bit as much to corporate interest and the richest Americans as Bush did before him.

LOL! When do you ever not "look south of the border"? What about Alaska or Hawaii? Americans federal elections provide much more choice than in Canada.

[August1991]

I didn't hijack your thread....

Also, is it even possible to hijack a thread that had no new responses in the last week? I saved this sinking ship, not hijacked it!

First, it's not my thread. I may have started the thread but it's now part of MLW. Second, if you think a thread is a "sinking ship" because it has had no responses in the "last week", MG, you don't understand the Internet.

Whatever you post here, it will last forever. Anyone can bump a thread and remind us all of your thoughts several years ago. Believe me, to my occasional regret, I know.

Any "entitlements" that the poor have were only ever implemented as a way for the rich to secure their wealth and the earliest programs were started to keep the socialists from gaining popular favour.

Cybercoma, at least you admit that the poor (at least 50%) now have the right to vote.

Go back in time and imagine what Enlightened people of the 18th century would say about this.

Edited January 8, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

So as long as people can vote, it doesn't matter at all what their conditions of life are? Even if the only people they can vote for are bought and paid for to pass the legislation that the "elite" want, at least they had a say?

[Michael Hardner]

So as long as people can vote, it doesn't matter at all what their conditions of life are? Even if the only people they can vote for are bought and paid for to pass the legislation that the "elite" want, at least they had a say?

Cyber, this may be a temporary problem. The costs of campaigning are tied to television advertising costs, and television advertising is a dinosaur. There are more Ron Pauls and Howard Deans out there ready to step in. One of them may have the foresight and strategy to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, since such reform would undercut the moneyed interests that have successfully managed populism over the past 40 years or so.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... One of them may have the foresight and strategy to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, since such reform would undercut the moneyed interests that have successfully managed populism over the past 40 years or so.

Sorry, they won't have the foresight and strategy to escape the US Constitution and Supreme Court.

[Michael Hardner]

Why not? It's been done before.