Unionize Wal-Mart or Let's Boot Them From Canada

[Argus]

I am not protesting against free trade as a concept but against trade with China, which is a nation which does not trade fairly.

You don't want to halt trade with China because you feel pity for the Chinese people in their oppressed existence, you want to because a Chinese can go hang before you'll see a Canadian lose a dollar. Also, you believe that halting trade with China will somehow loosen the Communist grip on the country, and that increased trade with China will tighten it, but the opposite is true. As more capitalism and private ownership becomes a fact of life in China, it will become increasingly difficult for the Chinese government to keep a tight control.

It is interesting, Hugo, that you are not only psychic - able to tell what I am thinking and why without my having said it (or, indeed, consciously considered it) but also have the ability to forecast with unerring confidence what increased trade will do to China's governmental systems. With such talent I wonder you aren't a wealthy and powerful man.

I said I oppose trade with China because it does not trade fairly. You really don't need to imagine what reasons lie behind my stated objection. You need only read what I wrote. China's double-dealng on trade is legendary, involving everything from false-flagging ships and false tagging goods in order to get around trade restrictions, not only the export of massive amounts of forged products, but the continual lying about the use of slave labour and essentially blackmailing companies to keep them from withdrawing any profits from China. I believe trade with such a country will only ever be in their favour, and cost us more than we can hope to gain. Soon it will be using the blueprints from aircraft and automobile manufacturing plants set up there by western companies to produce their own slightly altered versions to send back to us at prices reduced enough to detroy our own automotive and aircraft industries.

All that comes on top of their brutal violation of human rights, of course. And I might add that despite the predictions of people like yourself that increased trade, investment and capitalism would lead to the destruction of their tightly held power structure there is not the slightest sign of this happening. Eleven years after Tiananamen Square China is, if anything, becoming more repressive, tightening control over information, communication, religion, and cultural life in China.

Read the following. It applies just as much to Canada.

This is a link from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, which describes itself as "a federation of 60 national and international labor unions." As such, it has an extremely biased perspective. Reading through this body of text, we find that it is basically one long post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. They list a few facts, true, but fail to link them together in any meaningful way or to explain the theory by which they are linked, merely sprinkling these random factoids around coupled with wholly subjective opinion in a way that is likely to lead a reader to their conclusion without ever making an actual argument.

I don't think it should be taken seriously.

Such blithe dismissal. Now did I so rudely dismiss your radical libertarian web site, apparently the home of all your wacky economic theories?

In every industry from mining to manufacturing it was unions which pressured companies and governments to put safety rules and regulations in place and give workers shorter work weeks and rewards for overtime.

The facts do not support your opinion. For example, by the time child labour laws were passed, child labour was all but extinct. It had been driven out of existence by forces of the free labour market. Labour unions had no part in this.

Uhm, Hugo, you don't seem to realize this, but I'm not a wild-eyed socialist. I'm a conservative. I might have my problems with some unions, and some of their past and present behaviour, but I'm not about to so easily dismiss the historical facts about their impact and contribution to better and safer working conditions and more liveable lives for employees.

And frankly, I have to wonder about the intellectual honesty of anyone who does.

[Hugo]

I don't recall ever losing an argument to you. I stop arguing with you, usually, when you turn everything into a naive Libertarian contest.

The fact that you are here, regurgitating the argument, gives the lie to that statement.

Perhaps you could revert to my point that Child Labour began to come under law in 1833 long before it was extinct as you claimed.

I already addressed that. I noted that the worst abuses of children occurred under the care of the government and that early legislation was directed at the state rather than industry. Child exploitation became a thing of the past in the free market before the state stopped exploiting the children in its care, and the exploitation that took place in the free market was far lesser than that which the state committed. Your argument amounts to asking the wolves to police the sheep.

I did not base "my understanding of chikld labour" on those reports in the other thread.

You had told me that your understanding was based upon Dickens, the Hammonds and other writers who used those committee reports as the basis for their works. You had your information second-hand, but those reports, like it or not, are the foundation of your knowledge on this subject.

I said I oppose trade with China because it does not trade fairly. You really don't need to imagine what reasons lie behind my stated objection. You need only read what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote. You wrote that you did not care for foreigners nearly as much as for Canadians. I drew a conclusion based on the information you had given me. Now you are repeating the same story again: you say that we should avoid free trade with China not because they brutalize their people, but because they might rip us off. I don't see how I must be a mind-reader, just being an English-reader seems to be working!

I believe trade with such a country will only ever be in their favour, and cost us more than we can hope to gain.

But it is not up to you. The free market is based on trust and honour. Those who are not trustworthy and honourable find themselves increasingly cast out from the benefits of the market. The individuals involved in the trade will have to make their own assessments of how trustworthy their Chinese partners are likely to be and decide whether or not to trade based upon that. Many of them, as I said, are deciding on India instead.

What you are asking for is the right to override their free will.

And I might add that despite the predictions of people like yourself that increased trade, investment and capitalism would lead to the destruction of their tightly held power structure there is not the slightest sign of this happening.

Take a look at the figures for unauthorised satellite dishes in China. The attempts to tighten are the last gasps from the Chinese government. Political control is impossible without economic control. As I have said before, one cannot have political freedom if the state owns every printer, publisher, radio station and TV network. The reverse is also true.

Such blithe dismissal. Now did I so rudely dismiss your radical libertarian web site, apparently the home of all your wacky economic theories?

First of all, I at least treated your link to an argument. You were rude enough to act as though I had never spoken, ignoring my links completely. Secondly, I don't think the Mises Institute is a "radical libertarian" site. Such unjustified, ad hominem attacks weaken your position. Reactionary labelling without justification doesn't get you anywhere.

Uhm, Hugo, you don't seem to realize this, but I'm not a wild-eyed socialist. I'm a conservative.

No, you are not. Conservatives are in favour of free trade and minimal government, you don't favour either, so you can't carry the label. You are a socialist, or at best an interventionist.

I might have my problems with some unions, and some of their past and present behaviour, but I'm not about to so easily dismiss the historical facts about their impact and contribution to better and safer working conditions and more liveable lives for employees.

I think you should question the historical facts a little more carefully. Don't accept everything you are told. Once you know the underlying theory it's easy to see how the facts fit into it.

The fact is that the myth of the benevolent union has as much place in economic theory as the flat earth does in astronomy. I've already demonstrated why, and you have offered no defence except to bleat a repetition of your original statement without further evidence or logical argument.

[Guest eureka]

I am more than a little tired of your imputing to me ideas I do not hold and distorting what I do say.

I am also tired of your inability to address points that are made by sliding your responses to different times and different situations.

I recall someone saying that some here have been "schooled" by you in the past. I think that person was awed by your messianic pounding of your amusing obsessions. I am not.

Your posts are nothing but regurgitation of certain economists who have similar limited and myopic views. I wondered, for a time, whether you were just "cutting and pasting" but I think that you actually have committed the mantras to memory. Your credibility as a disputant of economic doctrine is not high whn you can call the greatest economist of the twentieth century a "fool" simply because you believe yourself to be possessed of a "truth" unknown to all but your band of missionaries.

In that case, you are wasting your intelligence. You also sometimes get it wrong. As in your mistaken version of what Von Mises actually said about Keynes and "low wages." I had been going to call you on that but I decided to let it go because I was not going to subject myself to reading your eternal self important diatribes.

I joined these forums for the pleasure of reading diverse opinions on a wide variety of possible topics. I am not at all interested in devoting my life to correcting your psychological problems. I will not waste my time on you.

[August1991]

eureka and Argus, Hugo is an ideologue. Like all ideologues, Hugo is tiresome and stubborn but also sometimes makes valid points.

In case you're interested, this is an interesting web site.

IME, libertarians like Hugo (Hugo will likely correct me in a pedantic, anal retentive fashion by claiming to be a "social anarchist" or some such and not a "libertarian") have no grounding in mathematics and have a poor or no understanding of the First and Second Welfare Theorems of Economics. (And Hugo, David Friedman is hardly mainstream and he is certainly no libertarian.)

I joined these forums for the pleasure of reading diverse opinions on a wide variety of possible topics.

I agree.

[Hugo]

I am more than a little tired of your imputing to me ideas I do not hold and distorting what I do say.

Eureka declines to reply, again. No matter - I expect he will bring up exactly the same arguments again in a few weeks or months. This is his usual pattern. Imputations that I am too tiresome for debate or suffering from "psychological problems" are obviously false by virtue of the fact that, despite repeated promises to do so, Eureka seems incapable of leaving me alone. He alleges that he doesn't have time for me, and yet he repeatedly makes time for me.

The actual reason is that he can't answer my arguments, as he has repeatedly demonstrated, and for reasons best left to his psychiatrist he takes this very personally rather than in the spirit of academic debate, lashing out in unwarranted personal attacks and slander, then retreating to sulk until another day.

I'm not sure what I had imputed that he said, which he did not. In my last post, I only alleged that he had drawn ideas from the works of Dickens, the Hammonds and the Commissions based upon which they wrote. In Eureka's own words:

Another book of the times, since someone does not like Diskens, is "Mary Barton" by Mrs. Gaskell... The fiction writers I mentioned also provided more evidence than would be found in any judicial inquiry. I could provide you with moe names - Thomas Hood's poetry is good and powerful.

In the same thread you also made repeated references to the commissions I am talking about. You are lying.

Your posts are nothing but regurgitation of certain economists who have similar limited and myopic views. I wondered, for a time, whether you were just "cutting and pasting" but I think that you actually have committed the mantras to memory.

Your disdain for learning, self-education and knowledge would make Mao Zedong proud. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of your book and hold you in disgust for your mindless conformity to English grammar. How unoriginal and ignorant your repetition is.

You also sometimes get it wrong. As in your mistaken version of what Von Mises actually said about Keynes and "low wages." I had been going to call you on that but I decided to let it go

I don't believe there is anything to be called on here. If you feel you have something then by all means, shout out, but I'm sure you'll just elect to bluster that I'm not worth your time instead - a convenient, if false, excuse.

I joined these forums for the pleasure of reading diverse opinions on a wide variety of possible topics.

In your own words, again:

Hugo and I both enjoy argument and the others involved are being patient with us.

Another lie?

[Hugo]

Hugo will likely correct me in a pedantic, anal retentive fashion

On the contrary, I will just point out again that your purility and immaturity do your argument far more damage than is offset by your slinging of silly insults. It's something you have a problem with. Grow up and learn to debate properly or stop wasting our time.

a poor or no understanding of the First and Second Welfare Theorems of Economics.

You cited it before, I offered a refutation, and you offered no counterpoint. Repeating what you would like to be true does not make it so.

More to the point, we should note that you have only ever mentioned the names, and not any kind of understanding or even that you know what the theorems are! You certainly have never tried to apply them in an argument. I think your accusations of ignorance cover your own ignorance.

David Friedman is hardly mainstream and he is certainly no libertarian.

Whatever you say. You've proven yourself so ignorant thus far that unsubstantiated one-liners like this one can be safely ignored by persons of intelligence.

In case you're interested, this is an interesting web site.

In case you're interested, here is David Friedman making the author of that site look like a complete fool.

[Guest eureka]

So, August, we know what we are. You are puerile and I am a liar who practises a "mindless conformity to English Grammar."

I think I will ask Stoker to lend me that handkerchief.

Meanwhile, Hugo has hijacked another discussion. Quite a feat for a blind man.

[August1991]

So, August, we know what we are. You are puerile and I am a liar who practises a "mindless conformity to English Grammar."

It's only an Internet forum. It's not as if we were stuck in a train compartment for an overnight journey and Hugo was chain-smoking those filter-less dark tobacco cigarettes while waving his hands in the air.

BTW, Hugo, there is this quote at the end of Friedman's link:

I do believe that arguments about moral philosophy are on the whole less useful than arguments about economics--that we are more likely to generate both truth and agreement by trying to figure out what consequences institutions will have then by trying to figure out what consequences we should desire. Thus the whole debate has an odd element of shadow boxing--we are offering arguments and rebuttals in a field which he does not believe in at all, and which I regard with sufficient scepticism to prefer to base my arguments elsewhere.

Friedman, like his Dad, is a positivist. And like Coase, they are more concerned with outcomes. The quote is also interesting because it dersives directly from the Second Welfare Theorem.

But then, I recall you rejecting the "Chicago School" in favour of the "Vienna School". What school did David Friedman go to? (Does it matter?)

I recall looking at Friedman's web site ages ago. (I prefer reading published stuff and highly recommend Law's Order which is a more fun, vulgarized version of Richard Posner.) That link you provide is the opening salvo in a long discussion. I mentioned Huben's site because I think it provides an interesting take on "how to argue with ideologues".

If you want to pursue this, let's set up another thread on Friedman and Libertarianism.

[Hugo]

Friedman, like his Dad, is a positivist. And like Coase, they are more concerned with outcomes. The quote is also interesting because it dersives directly from the Second Welfare Theorem.

I don't believe the welfare theorems are useful, firstly because they attempt to make subjectives such as utility into objectives, which they are not; and secondly, because they are not applicable in a situation of limited or assymetrical information, and because of this, since assymetry of information applies to economic planners as much as anybody else it is not possible to attain a Pareto-optimal outcome with economic interventionism.

But then, I recall you rejecting the "Chicago School" in favour of the "Vienna School". What school did David Friedman go to? (Does it matter?)

I think David Friedman describes himself as Chicago-school. However, in answer to your second question it probably does not matter. For instance, von Mises is a mainstay of Austrian economics, and David Friedman is a self-described Chicagoan, however, when it comes to the question of policing, law and justice, Friedman's opinion is more in line with Austrian modes of thought than von Mises who, in this field, could probably be best described as Marxist! As somebody on another forum once quipped, von Mises was not a Misesian. Murray Rothbard is probably a better Austrian-capitalist than von Mises.

Therefore, I think it important not to judge people too much on what school they place themselves into but on the schools themselves, and moreover, on the principles of their thought. I agree with the majority of the fundamental principles of Austrian capitalism, as would other self-confessed Austrian capitalists. The same is not true of the principles of Chicago capitalism.

The other important distinction to make is between anarchists and statists. Friedman or even Chomsky have very different ideas on economics, however, they all agree that force and coercion should not play a part and because of that, any economic theories are predictive rather than prescriptive. On the other hand, an Austrian statist like Alan Greenspan may have more accurate economic ideas (on the whole) than either Friedman or Chomsky, but has not renounced the use of force and might well be prepared to use coercion in order to ensure his preferred economic outcome.

I mentioned Huben's site because I think it provides an interesting take on "how to argue with ideologues".

The joke of it is that Huben commits virtually all of the fallacies he derides libertarians for. He also uses some very silly arguments against libertarianism. For example, he unbelieveably trots out the Proudhonism: "Property is theft." But what is theft? Expropriation of property! So property is expropriation of itself?

If you want to pursue this, let's set up another thread on Friedman and Libertarianism.

If you promise to behave yourself, go ahead.