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

[Argus]

Then it's really quite simple. You've made a sound economic decision. You have decided that the service of not being treated like cattle has more value to you than the price difference between Wal-Mart and this mysterious snooty shop you buy things at.

But if we respect your economic decision and the value you place on being treated like a lord, should you not respect the economic decisions of others, and the value they place on being treated like a lord?

You have a bizarre mindset where you sneer at "snooty" stores because they don't treat their customers like cattle, and sneer at people who don't want to be treated as cattle by suggesting they want to be treated like "lords". Is there no where in your mind for a mid-point? Is anyone who rejects the crudity, the shoddy service and crappy quality of a Wal-Mart presuming to be a "lord"? You make it sound like, to you, anyone who rejects Wal-Mart is somehow being arrogant and presumptuous. The fact is all they're doing is showing a touch of good taste. Assuredly no one of taste or quality will ever shop at a Wal-Mart, sometimes known as "white trash central".

[Argus]

Did I say this? I just do not enjoy going there and, for me, it is worth the extra money to stay away from them. They can remain open as far as I am concerned.

The thread's title refers to booting Wal Mart from Canada. Maybe that's where the confusion arose. It's understood that you may not like Wal Mart, but you are not against it operating in Canada.

I am against it operating in Canada. Quite aside from the fact it is a very unpleasant place to shop, with goods of inferior quality, is the damage it does to local communities and to the economy. I can't avoid that simply by not shopping at their stores.

[Argus]

Yes, and they will be. If you want to help third-world workers, the best thing you can do is to buy more third-world-made products.

While I don't want to appear hard-hearted the fact is the welfare of third world citizens is of very minor importance to me in comparison to the well-being of Canadians. Shipping millions of jobs offshore and then buying the products manufactured certainly helps the consumer but is ultimately self defeating. Too many previously good jobs disappearing means fewer and fewer people able to purchase those products.

[Guest eureka]

If you really want to help third world countries, then drop agricultural That would transform the economies of 50 poor countries and do as many times as much good as WalMart does(?) at less human cost in North America.

[August1991]

Your China example is similar. China does not send us stuff for free. We have to send something to China to trade and get all the stuff it sends to us. If we stopped importing from China, we would in effect shut down all those Canadian firms now exporting.

Uh, what we send to China for exports is called "money". China has a pretty one-sided trade with everyone else. It does not like to import goods. If it wants, say airplanes, it will contract for the manufacturer to build the plant in China, then, after they have completed the contract, it will take over the plant and start producing a very slightly modified version for half the price.

About all we sell to China are raw materials.

Money? Mere paper? And the Chinese accept this paper money for the stuff they send back to us? Then this sounds like a great deal for us.

Argus, I think we should stop all Canadians using the light and heat of the Sun. After all, the Sun produces light and heat at a cost well below any possible supplier in Canada. This is unfair competition for our energy industry and eliminates thousands, if not millions, of Canadian jobs in our high-tech energy industry.

Your argument against trade with China is no different from the argument I just made above against "trade" with the sun.

IOW, if the Chinese sent us stuff for free, you say we should stop it because it undercuts our own production. By the same logic, we would stop Sunlight and heat because it undercuts our own producers.

Argus, the whole point of trade is that people can get what they want in an easier way.

I'll expand, "existentially". The point of life is not how much you have (richest coffin in the graveyard) but how much you deal profitably with others (she changed my life).

It took about two or three hundred years to settle the debate about whether the earth was flat or round. We are only about two hundred years into the debate about trade.

Thankfully, people like you Argus are increasingly seen as people who believe in a flat earth.

With that said, the world may be round, but it's not perfect.

[Argus]

Your China example is similar. China does not send us stuff for free. We have to send something to China to trade and get all the stuff it sends to us. If we stopped importing from China, we would in effect shut down all those Canadian firms now exporting.

Uh, what we send to China for exports is called "money". China has a pretty one-sided trade with everyone else. It does not like to import goods. If it wants, say airplanes, it will contract for the manufacturer to build the plant in China, then, after they have completed the contract, it will take over the plant and start producing a very slightly modified version for half the price.

About all we sell to China are raw materials.

Money? Mere paper? And the Chinese accept this paper money for the stuff they send back to us? Then this sounds like a great deal for us.

Are you on drugs or something? It almost sounds like your fluttering around with a glassy look in your eyes and a stupid smile on your face without the slightest idea what we're talking about.

Yeah, money's not important, except for those of us who work for it.

[Hugo]

You are clearly lacking even minimal information about trade with Asia. Especially China. No, none of that is going to come from North America. It's going to be made there. They make their own machine tools, computers and air conditioners there, and do it cheaper than we can since they use cheap labour.

Intel, Coca-Cola, Novell, Cisco, Carrier and so forth are all American firms. They may manufacture those things overseas, but those profits come back home.

Uh huh, and what do you believe is the net "stimulative effect" of shipping milions of jobs overseas to Asia? Remember, we don't make our own TVs any more, or our own radios, or, for the most part, computers, boots, clothes, cars, etc.

I don't see mass unemployment, and this is already the case. If what you said was true we would expect to have seen rising unemployment since globalisation began in earnest, and we have not. The facts simply don't support what you are saying. Go look up the unemployment figures. I think you'll find that unemployment is far more closely linked to the money supply than to outsourcing of anything.

Why don't you prove water is wet, first? Then I'll see about trying to prove the obvious right back at you.

It is not obvious. There are a lot of economists who vehemently disagree with everything you are saying.

This is bullshit, August. Remove the regulations we have put on them and capitalist enterprises would be pouring toxic sludge into playgrounds and chaining their employees to their work stations for 18 hr days.

I said it, not August. The reason why we have environmental pollution is the tragedy of the commons, as August has so often said, that which is owned by everyone shall be cared for by no-one. If you want to preserve the environment, sell every square inch of the earth's surface, sell the atmosphere and privatize (capitalize) everything. Then the environment will improve. Don't believe me? See the example of private forestry in the southern USA, which in a few years reversed environmental damage which public ownership had failed to prevent for decades.

As to safety and working hours, capitalism brought about better wages, more workplace safety and better working hours. As the demand for labour increases relative to the supply and the pace of capital growth increases, those demanding labour are forced to offer more. That doesn't mean just money. It means they'll have to offer whatever the labour force demands. Put down your Das Kapital, it contains no useful information and is full of silly errors.

Capitalism is not about being nice.

Jesus is about being nice. You won't find an economic system that's about "being nice", if that is what is important to you, I suggest you become a monk rather than a socialist. Capitalism just takes the human predisposition for not "being nice" and turns it into nice results.

Utter nonsense. You're forgetting about the opportunity cost involved in setting up, as an example, a large chain of toy stores, especially knowing that if you do Wal-Mart will just drop its toy prices again until you are forced out of business.

It didn't seem to stop Microsoft, which was at the time a three-man operation, toppling the giant of the IT industry, IBM. Wal-Mart was once a two-bit company that had to face down the giant, all-powerful Sears - and won.

All of these big corporations you see as being so evil and unstoppable started as small operations and successfully beat down the big corporations of their day - and it will all happen again. In a century, Wal-Mart will be forgotten, and your intellectual heirs will be whining about some other retailer that is wholly unknown today.

There's an axium that any hope for intelligent debate disappears the moment someone brings in Hitler. But the above is nonsense on a number of different levels.

Well, why don't you explain some of these levels, then. My point is that democracy does not necessarily give you the right to do anything. Even if you could get 20 million people in Canada to agree to murdering the other 10 million and stealing their property, would that make it right? Would it make it your right to kill them?

One-way trade is where a nation strives determinedly to sell you anything and everything it can, while putting road blocks and tarrifs and customs duties in the way of any of your exports. And China is a master at that, as is Japan.

Yes, and their economies are suffering because of it. China is already being shunned by many outsourcers in favour of countries like India. Most Fortune 500 companies now think of China as a bad investment. The Chinese economy is slowing, unemployment is on the rise, there is widespread discontent in the rust belt and the Chinese government is generally believed to have been falsifying the figures that seemed to indicate good economic growth in recent years.

Japan has been in economic stagnation for 11 years, thanks to mixed-economy theories and trade-surplus doctrine. Germany tries to follow the same policy as Japan, with the exact same result. What you want is for Canada and the USA to follow the same policy as them, but for some unknown reason you think that something completely different will happen this time. Explain why history will fail to repeat itself with us.

Uh, what we send to China for exports is called "money".

"We" don't send anything to "China." Some individuals in Canada happen to do some business with some individuals in China. Where they live and work is not really relevant. The same argument could be used to argue for only doing business in your hometown and refusing to buy anything made or sold elsewhere, or as August is fond of saying, of insisting on tailoring your own clothes and growing your own food.

Assuredly no one of taste or quality will ever shop at a Wal-Mart, sometimes known as "white trash central".

You accuse me of sneering at some stores, and then you say this? My comments were made in jest. Yours appear to be serious. Remove the rafter from your eye, friend.

While I don't want to appear hard-hearted the fact is the welfare of third world citizens is of very minor importance to me in comparison to the well-being of Canadians.

Why? Are you racist?

Thankfully, people like you Argus are increasingly seen as people who believe in a flat earth.

I read a funny column recently in which an economist recalled talking to a biology teacher. The teacher objected to the fact that her textbooks now had to carry disclaimers warning that evolution was "just a theory", and was complaining that she had to defend evolution against these stupid, 18th-century ideas. To which the economist replied, "How do you think we feel? We spend all our time defending free trade against stupid, 17th-century ideas!"

Yeah, money's not important, except for those of us who work for it.

Money is a commodity. It's only more important than other commodities because of the fact that it is universally accepted in trade.

[August1991]

Yeah, money's not important, except for those of us who work for it.

Argus, do you work for mere paper (money) or do you work for the things you can obtain with the mere paper (money).

Never confuse money for wealth.

And Argus, you still haven't said whether it would be a good idea to stop sunlight since the sun undercuts our own Canadian energy producers.

[Argus]

You are clearly lacking even minimal information about trade with Asia. Especially China. No, none of that is going to come from North America. It's going to be made there. They make their own machine tools, computers and air conditioners there, and do it cheaper than we can since they use cheap labour.

Intel, Coca-Cola, Novell, Cisco, Carrier and so forth are all American firms. They may manufacture those things overseas, but those profits come back home.

Well, uhm, no they don't. The Chinese don't want to see money leaving their country. Those big companies you talk about, not to mention the small ones, are required to follow certain rules in China. Among those rules is to take on a Chinese partner (a friend of those in power who will kick back money to them), and to re-invest most if not all of their profits in China. They are "allowed" to take some profits out, but they are unofficially urged not to, and those who don't go along find their ability to expand meets with obstacles.

Uh huh, and what do you believe is the net "stimulative effect" of shipping milions of jobs overseas to Asia? Remember, we don't make our own TVs any more, or our own radios, or, for the most part, computers, boots, clothes, cars, etc.

I don't see mass unemployment, and this is already the case. If what you said was true we would expect to have seen rising unemployment since globalisation began in earnest, and we have not.

Unemployment figures aren't neccessarily accurate in this case because they don't measure what type of job a person has. An auto worker who loses his $75,000 a year job and works for Wal-Mart at $9hr is statistically neutral on unemployment charts. Evem if he only works part-time he's still counted as employed. Good jobs are disappearing, lousy jobs are replacing them. And more and more people are only able to find part-time work, or must work multiple jobs to get by.

As to safety and working hours, capitalism brought about better wages, more workplace safety and better working hours.

That's nonsense. What brought about safety and better working conditions, as well as shorter work-weeks was the rise of unions. And capitalist enterprises fought them bitterly every step of the way.

Utter nonsense. You're forgetting about the opportunity cost involved in setting up, as an example, a large chain of toy stores, especially knowing that if you do Wal-Mart will just drop its toy prices again until you are forced out of business.

It didn't seem to stop Microsoft, which was at the time a three-man operation, toppling the giant of the IT industry, IBM. Wal-Mart was once a two-bit company that had to face down the giant, all-powerful Sears - and won.

Microsoft has never competed with IBM, which is still a giant of the IT industry. MS worked with IBM to develop software for IBM hardware. And Sears was only one among many in a far less tightly centralized retail market with many independant stores.

One-way trade is where a nation strives determinedly to sell you anything and everything it can, while putting road blocks and tarrifs and customs duties in the way of any of your exports. And China is a master at that, as is Japan.

Yes, and their economies are suffering because of it. China is already being shunned by many outsourcers in favour of countries like India. Most Fortune 500 companies now think of China as a bad investment.

Really? I guess it's hard to see that for the jostling crowds of big businessmen desperately trying to elbow their way into China to do business, eh? Not to mention putting pressure on their governments to do whatever China wants, be it granting it most favoured nation trade status, ignoring their human rights abuses, or shunning Taiwan.

Japan has been in economic stagnation for 11 years, thanks to mixed-economy theories and trade-surplus doctrine.

Yes, I understand this caused a 50 year high unemployment rate a couple of years back of ... 5.5%. Thankfully it's down to about 4.5% now.

What you want is for Canada and the USA to follow the same policy as them, but for some unknown reason you think that something completely different will happen this time. Explain why history will fail to repeat itself with us.

First of all your version of history seems curiously blinkered. second, I haven't really advocated much in terms of trade except to point out that allowing massive infusions of trade goods from the likes of China while being unable to export back to them is recipe for economic problems and costs us massive numbers of manufacturing jobs.

While I don't want to appear hard-hearted the fact is the welfare of third world citizens is of very minor importance to me in comparison to the well-being of Canadians.

Why? Are you racist?

No, why? Do you molest children?

[Hugo]

Well, uhm, no they don't. The Chinese don't want to see money leaving their country. Those big companies you talk about, not to mention the small ones, are required to follow certain rules in China.

I see. So, you are protesting against free trade using an example of government-restricted trade. In other words, a massive self-contradiction.

Good jobs are disappearing, lousy jobs are replacing them. And more and more people are only able to find part-time work, or must work multiple jobs to get by.

What's your evidence? So far, I see nothing but bluster. Middle-class incomes in America have been shrinking, however, this is a product of inflation and increased government control over the economy (federal taxes were 2% of family income in 1950, but 30% today). Outsourcing has nothing to do with it, and nor does technological progress, something you also doubtless oppose. Declining incomes correspond far more closely with inflation and state economic participation than they do with globalization.

What brought about safety and better working conditions, as well as shorter work-weeks was the rise of unions.

No, this is not true. Unions cannot bring these things about, it is impossible for them to do so. The only thing that can bring about greater rewards for a worker is greater investment of capital in him to increase his productivity, which unions cannot provide. In fact, they discourage it, by using violent means to assure above-marginal wage rates for some workers at the expense of others who lose their jobs, which discourages capital investment in the worker by reducing the net value of his work to his employer, and is therefore counter-productive.

Your statement makes about as much sense as saying that unions can make water flow uphill.

Microsoft has never competed with IBM, which is still a giant of the IT industry.

Microsoft drove OS/2 out of the software marketplace. IBM is no longer a software provider because of Microsoft. IBM is still a fairly major player in the IT industry, but the once-pipsqueak Microsoft is now a greater player. Dell, again, has come from nowhere and completely marginalised IBM's once-dominant PC business. Now there's talk that IBM will withdraw from PC manufacturing altogether and concentrate on processors. IBM has had to largely re-invent itself as a consultancy firm.

MS worked with IBM to develop software for IBM hardware.

Briefly. You don't know the history of the IT industry, clearly.

Sears was only one among many in a far less tightly centralized retail market with many independant stores.

Who were the "many", then, and where are they now?

Really? I guess it's hard to see that for the jostling crowds of big businessmen desperately trying to elbow their way into China to do business, eh?

Where's your evidence? What are the investment figures in China and how do they compare to India? What are the forecasts?

Yes, I understand this caused a 50 year high unemployment rate a couple of years back of ... 5.5%. Thankfully it's down to about 4.5% now.

I thought you said unemployment figures were irrelevant just a few paragraphs above? Anyway, 4.5% is a catastrophic unemployment rate for Japan in light of their history and culture, given that in the 1980s it never topped 2.8% and that Japan has a culture of lifetime unemployment.

The Japanese government also falsifies the figures by paying companies "employment adjustment subsidies" to keep employees on the payroll without doing any productive work.

Do you know what the Nikkei index is today? 11,074. In 1989, it was over 40,000. In 1992, it was 15,000. In 2001, it was 12,000. Ever since 1998, Japanese economic growth has actually been negative.

No, why? Do you molest children?

No, but then I never told you I was sexually attracted to them. You told me that you care far less about third-worlders than about Canadians. Why, if not racism?

First of all your version of history seems curiously blinkered.

Then what is your alternative version of history? If you want me to post the figures of German and Chinese economic problems as well as the Japanese, I'll do so, but until you show that you have any facts to back up your statements at all I think it unfair that I am the only one proving my points!

second, I haven't really advocated much in terms of trade except to point out that allowing massive infusions of trade goods from the likes of China while being unable to export back to them is recipe for economic problems and costs us massive numbers of manufacturing jobs.

"We" are exporting back to "them." We're exporting money.

[Cartman]

QUOTE 

Well, uhm, no they don't. The Chinese don't want to see money leaving their country. Those big companies you talk about, not to mention the small ones, are required to follow certain rules in China.

I see. So, you are protesting against free trade using an example of government-restricted trade. In other words, a massive self-contradiction.

Funny, I was thinkin' just the opposite; that you two were making the massive self-contradiction. You are saying that we should establish free trade with a country that does not practice free trade? Seems a little lop-sided to me. They are a communist country after all. Argus has also made a valid point that human rights are something to be concerned about when considering trade with China. I have yet to see any sound logic to refute these claims with the exception of abstract teleological arguments that any trade is always good in the end for all parties. Too absolute for my liking.

Hugo said:

I suggest you become a monk rather than a socialist. Capitalism just takes the human predisposition for not "being nice" and turns it into nice results.

See you at the next commie BBQ Argus.

[August1991]

I am against it operating in Canada. Quite aside from the fact it is a very unpleasant place to shop, with goods of inferior quality, is the damage it does to local communities and to the economy. I can't avoid that simply by not shopping at their stores.

Argus, you are against Wal Mart operating in Canada because of the "damage" it does to local economies?

By the same logic, Argus, you must be against letting the Sun's light and summer warmth into Canada because it has a terrible effect on our lighting and heating industry. Millions of people in our energy industry lose jobs everytime the sun rises because the sun offers light and heat at a cost well below any Canadian supplier.

China is no different from the Sun. It offers products to Canada at bargain basement prices. Like the Sun, this means ordinary Canadians lose jobs. But overall we benefit. Like a warm summer's day.

Trade is like new technology or a gift of nature.

Argus, if a car existed that used water for fuel and needed no maintenance for 20 years but sold for $10,000, would that be a good thing for society?

If such a car existed, how many people would lose their jobs?

[Hugo]

You are saying that we should establish free trade with a country that does not practice free trade? Seems a little lop-sided to me.

Here's the contradiction. We say we like free trade. We say we won't trade with China because they don't like free trade. After we say that, we don't like free trade either!

I have yet to see any sound logic to refute these claims with the exception of abstract teleological arguments that any trade is always good in the end for all parties. Too absolute for my liking.

Total rubbish. A trade is an agreement in which both parties genuinely believe they have profited. How could this not be good (bearing in mind that "good" is completely subjective)? What you are saying is that it's "too absolute" to claim that everything I find good, I find good, or to make an analogy, it's "too absolute" to claim that water is always water.

[Cartman]

A trade is an agreement in which both parties genuinely believe they have profited.

This statement precisely identifies the ignored, failing heart of free market exchange. Several times, I have aptly identified the tautological and teleological flaws of these arguments and pointed out that these sentiments are crude, antiquated and elementary. My well accepted criticisms, as evidenced by the reality of interventionist governments, are consistently ignored by some on this forum. Some MLW posters appear to know more than the majority of citizens in industrialized, democratic societies! How knowledgeable yet arrogant. Simply put, however, there exists in this world unequal exchange, particularly when there exists considerable power differentials (of all sorts).

Tautology

Perhaps I find no value at all in automobile insurance. The only choices I have are to not drive, drive illegally and become a criminal, or engage in unwanted exchange. Perhaps I find myself unfortunately underemployed. This sort of employment may be necessary in order to eat, pay for health care and put a roof over my head. Free market economists (FME’s) would then assert that there must be mutual profit from the exchange simply because the exchange exists. This is tautological reasoning in pure form! FME’s say that because exchange exists, it must be mutually beneficial. If it were not mutually beneficial, it would not exist. This is illogical and is strong evidence that the theory should be seriously questioned.

Under such tautological reasoning, one can legitimize any negative characteristic of life. But, some things exist without being mutually beneficial (i.e. war, crime, disease, famine etc). The reality is that many people simply begin life with social and economic deficits relative to others, yet FME’s argue that any agreement the less fortunate may be or feel forced to make in order to live are simply free exchanges. This is absurd, arrogant and denies us all of our natural rights; social context is entirely ignored!

Unequal Exchange

Argus has rightly questioned whether trade with communist China is mutually beneficial because the Chinese may refuse to trade fairly. After all, many nations are willing to compete “tooth and nail” for access to this large market because it may, but not necessarily, be ideal to do so. It is possible to give too much for such access. Why must the possibility of unequal exchange be abstractly debated in circles over and over when it could simply be reality? If I am in the desirable position of considerable power, as I suspect may be the Chinese at the moment, then why is it so illogical to assume that I may accept, say, a television for a potato? Why should Canadians be the less fortunate in such a deal, yet be ideologically induced to accept it as mutually beneficial trade, since it simply exists?

Teleology

FME’s also argue that such exchange exists because of the purposes they serve rather than by postulated causes. FME’s deny the fact that health care in Canada, for example, has served us well. Despite the fact that, per capita, Canadian health care spends roughly half of what American health care does even though over 40 million Americans are not insured and these people must endure the tragic consequences of this reality, the US system is considered a potential model for reform. Rather than consider the ample choice of doctors, the glaring economic efficiency of this “socialist” system, the recent deal in place and the support of (the) Conservative leader(s), FME’s ignore this and point to waiting lines. This is teleological reasoning pure and simple!

Why not just accept the possibility that the reason why the largest economies of this world are not free of government intervention, including the United States, Europe and Canada, is because the latter are viable and lived interventionist realities? FME’s pretend that their economic theories are irrefutable despite the fact that they are not even practised! Since most economies are “managed”, it is the FME’s that are the extremist, fanciful, radicals since they put forth a non-existent ideal. FME’s are equivalent to a religious following at best, or, more worrisome, to a brainwashed cult. Obvious evidence to the contrary is whimsically refuted as “self evident” because the world is, after all, flat. It is, strikingly, difficult to argue against the mythical number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin even though we observe that none do!

[August1991]

FME’s say that because exchange exists, it must be mutually beneficial. If it were not mutually beneficial, it would not exist. This is illogical and is strong evidence that the theory should be seriously questioned.

A person can refuse the exchange, or choose another offer. "Beneficial" does not mean best; it merely means better than all other alternatives, including not trading at all.

The reality is that many people simply begin life with social and economic deficits relative to others, yet FME’s argue that any agreement the less fortunate may be or feel forced to make in order to live are simply free exchanges.

On the contrary, economics takes explicitly into account the differences people possess at the start of life. For example, some of us are born ugly and some of us beautiful. This makes a significant difference in what trades will be on offer.

Simply put, however, there exists in this world unequal exchange, particularly when there exists considerable power differentials (of all sorts).

Do you mean coercion of some sort? What do you mean by "power differential"?

I think it is fair to say that the best form of negotiation for any individual is a price determined in anonymous market. It is the civilized way to co-operate and when it works well, no other way can achieve the same results.

Argus has rightly questioned whether trade with communist China is mutually beneficial because the Chinese may refuse to trade fairly.

What do you mean "trade fairly"? The Sun offers us sunlight for free but on the Sun's terms. We either accept it or not.

FME’s deny the fact that health care in Canada, for example, has served us well.

What? It is impossible to consider health care without immediately consdiering an insurance scheme. There is ample reason to believe otherwise good trades in insurance schemes don't occur. Other collective solutions may work better.

Why not just accept the possibility that the reason why the largest economies of this world are not free of government intervention, including the United States, Europe and Canada, is because the latter are viable and lived interventionist realities?

Cartman, I genuinely like the way you have approached this post. I am willing to consider government intervention may be beneficial at times. But foreign trade is an extremely bad example if you want to argue for government intervention.

Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Felipe Gonzalez are all Left-leaning politicians who have embraced the basic principles of free trade and free markets. Vaclav Havel said that the only Marxists remaining in the world teach in western universities.

IMV, the Left must redefine itself on the basis of free markets.

[Argus]

China is no different from the Sun.  It offers products to Canada at bargain basement prices.  Like the Sun, this means ordinary Canadians lose jobs.  But overall we benefit.  Like a warm summer's day.

Who says we all benefit? Do you believe that cheaper retail prices for goods is the entirety of economic prosperity? That nothing else matters? It certainly appers so. Given that service jobs pay very poorly, what do you imagine people are going to do for a living when China really gets going? For example, when it ramps up production of automobiles and floods the world market with them. Do you believe the destruction of the North American auto industry would be a fair exchange for paying a few thousand less for a car? And when it starts exporting aircraft you don't think the loss of Quebec's aircraft industry would be much to complain about? More and more software systems and services are being supplied from offshore, too. India is big, but China will be infinitely bigger. The hardware, of course, is already mostly produced in Asia.

[Argus]

Yeah, money's not important, except for those of us who work for it.

Argus, do you work for mere paper (money) or do you work for the things you can obtain with the mere paper (money).

Never confuse money for wealth.

I find money a close enough approximation for wealth to suit this discussion. Tens of billions flooding out of Canada might be just paper to you but it represents a real drain on the country.

[Argus]

Well, uhm, no they don't. The Chinese don't want to see money leaving their country. Those big companies you talk about, not to mention the small ones, are required to follow certain rules in China.

I see. So, you are protesting against free trade using an example of government-restricted trade. In other words, a massive self-contradiction.

How so? Where is your logic? I am not protesting against free trade as a concept but against trade with China, which is a nation which does not trade fairly.

Good jobs are disappearing, lousy jobs are replacing them. And more and more people are only able to find part-time work, or must work multiple jobs to get by.

What's your evidence? So far, I see nothing but bluster.

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

Jobs being shipped overseas

What brought about safety and better working conditions, as well as shorter work-weeks was the rise of unions.

No, this is not true. Unions cannot bring these things about, it is impossible for them to do so. The only thing that can bring about greater rewards for a worker is greater investment of capital in him to increase his productivity, which unions cannot provide.

Uh, this is ideological kant. And it is very, very clearly contradicted by history. 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.

Microsoft has never competed with IBM, which is still a giant of the IT industry.

Microsoft drove OS/2 out of the software marketplace. IBM is no longer a software provider because of Microsoft. IBM is still a fairly major player in the IT industry, but the once-pipsqueak Microsoft is now a greater player.

IBM hired MS to do its operating systems. By the time IBM had the bright idea of creating its own operating system for its PCs there were too many competing manufacturers and MS had become THE operating system they - and all their software suppliers used. It was not a case of a little guy coming up and pushing IBM out of the business, but rather, the attempt by IBM to introduce a new system in an industry (both hardware and software) which had already adopted MS as its standard. Honestly, MS has such a lousy operating system that if it were to try and push its way past competitors now it would fail miserably. And in fact, this is a good example of how corporations cannot be pushed aside by new competitors, because MS is freely acknowledged by every software developer I have ever known or heard of as being an attrociously inefficient and bug-ridden system. Yet it remains the standard.

[Argus]

You are saying that we should establish free trade with a country that does not practice free trade? Seems a little lop-sided to me.

Here's the contradiction. We say we like free trade. We say we won't trade with China because they don't like free trade. After we say that, we don't like free trade either!

Well then, if we use that as our example anyone who approves of and enjoys sex has to be in favour of rape, too. Right?

Total rubbish. A trade is an agreement in which both parties genuinely believe they have profited. How could this not be good (bearing in mind that "good" is completely subjective)?

Trade is done on an individual level, and what is good for Wal-Mart is not neccessarily good for the economy or country in general.

[Argus]

FME’s say that because exchange exists, it must be mutually beneficial. If it were not mutually beneficial, it would not exist. This is illogical and is strong evidence that the theory should be seriously questioned.

A person can refuse the exchange, or choose another offer. "Beneficial" does not mean best; it merely means better than all other alternatives, including not trading at all.

Nor does it mean fair, nor equal, nor even in the best interests of both parties. There are a number of external factors which can make one party enter into an agreement with another even though it's not profitable. Look at all those cheque cashing places which have sprung up over the last decade or so. They charge an outrageous rate of interest in order to give desperately poor people a few days advance on their pay cheques. If these people had the kinds of options the rest of us do they'd never enter into an agreement with such people.

On a larger scale, I recall some years back in the recession, Japan demanded we ship them raw, untreated logs, rather than cut them up in our own saw mills. This was patently against our interests as we had sawmills laying people off, and we would get much less money. Japan wanted all the work done in their economy. We reluctantly agreed because the alternative seemed to be that they would go elsewhere, and they agreed to undertake certain future investments (which they reneged on).

It is bad enough that so much of our economy is based on raw materials without letting all the processing be done elsewhere. We would be reduced to simply scooping up the rock, or cutting down the trees, and handing them over to someone else.

I think it is fair to say that the best form of negotiation for any individual is a price determined in anonymous market.  It is the civilized way to co-operate and when it works well, no other way can achieve the same results.

And when it doesnt' work well?

Argus has rightly questioned whether trade with communist China is mutually beneficial because the Chinese may refuse to trade fairly.

What do you mean "trade fairly"? The Sun offers us sunlight for free but on the Sun's terms. We either accept it or not.

Your sun example is silly. If we could get cheap energy, or cheapER energy, this would be beneficial to all industries in Canada, and thus the good would outweigh the damage done to the energy sector. How does flooding our nation with cheap manufactured goods - and thus destroying manufacturing jobs here - help our economy?

[August1991]

Your sun example is silly. If we could get cheap energy, or cheapER energy, this would be beneficial to all industries in Canada, and thus the good would outweigh the damage done to the energy sector. How does flooding our nation with cheap manufactured goods - and thus destroying manufacturing jobs here - help our economy?

Silly? The Sun floods Canada with cheap energy! How is that "different from flooding our nation with cheap manufactured goods"?

In both cases, jobs get destroyed. Is it not true that jobs are created in winter in Canada because there is less sunlight and less of the sun's heat? [We have to have furnaces, special insulation, fuel, light bulbs and so on. We must clear snow.] By your logic, Argus, the summer sun's light and warmth destroys all those jobs. We should have winter all year round and create more jobs!

Argus, when you argue against trade with China, this is in effect your argument.

How so? Where is your logic? I am not protesting against free trade as a concept but against trade with China, which is a nation which does not trade fairly.

How can voluntary trade not be fair? What do you mean by trade "fairly"?

The Chinese offer us terms of trade. We either accept them or refuse them. My favourite example is Honkong which has a policy of free trade with all other countries, regardless of what policy the other country applies to Hongkong.

If Canadians are not allowed to trade with foreigners and are forced to trade with other Canadians instead, this simply impoverishes Canada.

Argus, trade is not a hockey game in which rules should apply equally to both teams. The Sun provides its energy to us for free. Other deals are not so advantageous. We unfortunately have to give up something to get something in return.

Well then, if we use that as our example anyone who approves of and enjoys sex has to be in favour of rape, too. Right?

OMG, Argus. You are describing a terrible deed committed by raw force. Voluntary trade is anything but.

Look at all those cheque cashing places which have sprung up over the last decade or so. They charge an outrageous rate of interest in order to give desperately poor people a few days advance on their pay cheques.

You are mixing two problems: poverty and the benefit of trade. Poor people do things that rich people don't do. By stopping poor people, will you make them rich?

Trade is done on an individual level, and what is good for Wal-Mart is not neccessarily good for the economy or country in general.

Who gets the right to say that Wal Mart is not necessarily good for the economy or country in general? More pertinently in this case, Argus, how much would you be willing to pay to keep Wal Mart out of the country if it's so bad for the economy?

I find money a close enough approximation for wealth to suit this discussion. Tens of billions flooding out of Canada might be just paper to you but it represents a real drain on the country.

Money is not wealth, it is a claim on real wealth. The Chinese are willing to give us real stuff in return for paper that we print and we have the right at any moment in the future to redefine what real stuff that paper can claim.

Now, you tell me who is getting the better end of the deal? [Or, why would the Chinese accept such a deal?]

Do you believe that cheaper retail prices for goods is the entirety of economic prosperity?

*Sigh* Maybe people wouldn't have to go cheque-cashing places if retail prices were lower. Argus, are you seriously suggesting that prices are too low?

Given that service jobs pay very poorly, what do you imagine people are going to do for a living when China really gets going? For example, when it ramps up production of automobiles and floods the world market with them. Do you believe the destruction of the North American auto industry would be a fair exchange for paying a few thousand less for a car?

If the Chinese give away the cars for free, I'd say great! Argus, tell me now honestly, would you refuse a free Lexus if I offered it to you?

Argus, how could a free Lexus make you worse off? How could it make Canada worse off? Are you saying that free sunlight makes us worse off?

I think it is fair to say that the best form of negotiation for any individual is a price determined in anonymous market.  It is the civilized way to co-operate and when it works well, no other way can achieve the same results.

And when it doesnt' work well?

When the price mechanism doesn't work, the world has a problem. The solution does not involve arbitrarily saying that Joe cannot trade with Chen and instead must trade with Sam because, well, Chen is on the other side of this line whereas Sam is not.

[Hugo]

FME’s say that because exchange exists, it must be mutually beneficial. If it were not mutually beneficial, it would not exist. This is illogical

This stems from an originally Marxist fallacy. Marxists believe that all things have an innate value, which they usually figure as the total of labour invested in a given good. This is a ridiculous claim to make and, although Cartman is probably not a Marxist, the fact that he spouts Marxist fallacies is indicative of how prevalent these modes of thought have become.

Value is not objective, it is subjective. Objective qualities can be measured in a quantifiable way, such as mass, size and so forth. Value is a subjective quality, and cannot be converted to objective qualities. The value of an item depends upon the beholder, his preferences and his circumstances. In a city, $100 is more valuable than a gallon of water. Alone in a desert, the reverse is true. Nothing about either the water or the $100 has changed, however.

This being the case, it is impossible to prejudge which trades are beneficial and which are not, except for oneself. If a free trade has been made, it was mutually beneficial. If one party stood to lose from the trade he would not make it.

Perhaps I find no value at all in automobile insurance. The only choices I have are to not drive, drive illegally and become a criminal, or engage in unwanted exchange.

This example refutes your point, Cartman, because it demonstrates not a trade but a coercion. You are told that you must have automobile insurance to drive, but this is not the case. You must have gasoline to power your car, and this is the result of an immutable physical law that cannot be overridden by human will alone. However, the demand for insurance follows no physical law. The free market is not the cause of this problem, but potentially the solution.

Perhaps I find myself unfortunately underemployed. This sort of employment may be necessary in order to eat, pay for health care and put a roof over my head.

If this is the case, and you demand better and propose to use law to make it so, then you are coercing your employer. You force him to pay greater than your marginal value for your labour. Goods and services produced under such circumstances are not likely to be saleable. The reason why you were underemployed in the first place was probably a glut of the goods, or too small a profit margin, or just a lack of consumer demand. Insisting on your full employment makes this problem worse, so you are either going to force your employer out of business or commit a further coercion against the consumers by forcing them to buy.

Consider too that in our modern economy, virtually everybody is a creditor and an employer. To coerce employers is to coerce everybody. What you say in this example is that your concept of value should override somebody else's, against their will and desire, or in other words, you want to be a despot.

But, some things exist without being mutually beneficial (i.e. war, crime, disease, famine etc).

None of these are examples of free trade. War and crime are coercions, and disease and famine are the results of non-human action.

The reality is that many people simply begin life with social and economic deficits relative to others, yet FME’s argue that any agreement the less fortunate may be or feel forced to make in order to live are simply free exchanges.

You cannot eradicate the less fortunate. Some people are born stupid, or ugly, or with other unfortunate attributes. Ants are (almost) equal, people are not.

Furthermore, you are making a grave mistake here. You are trying to claim that a deal that one party was forced into is a free exchange. This is rubbish, night is not day, up is not down and your point is wrong. A free exchange is one in which both parties consent of their own free will.

Despite the fact that, per capita, Canadian health care spends roughly half of what American health care does even though over 40 million Americans are not insured and these people must endure the tragic consequences of this reality, the US system is considered a potential model for reform.

No, it isn't. The American system is a terrible socialist travesty of a healthcare system.

Why not just accept the possibility that the reason why the largest economies of this world are not free of government intervention, including the United States, Europe and Canada, is because the latter are viable and lived interventionist realities?

The reality is that the largest economies of this world are mostly democracies. Democratic politicians want votes, and an easy way to get votes is to tax the minority, inflate the currency and give the proceeds to the majority in order to convince them to vote for you. This is why our economies are interventionist, it is not a better mode of operation at all. Consider that all of the "largest economies" in the world were once absolute monarchies and feudal states too. Does this mean that absolute monarchy and feudalism is the best system for a state?

FME’s pretend that their economic theories are irrefutable despite the fact that they are not even practised!

At one time, circumnavigation was not practiced because the world was thought to be flat. Did that make the world flat? Or was it the case that virtually everybody in the world was mistaken about the fundamental nature of our planet?

Regardless, the point is wrong anyway. Governments may not acknowledge the superiority of the free market, but people do, and free trades go on every day. The "theories" you deride also correctly explain economic functions that can be readily observed, including the phenomena of interventionism.

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

Your argument falls down on two counts: firstly, you are arguing for the wrong reasons, secondly, you are arguing based on flawed conclusions.

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.

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.

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.

IBM hired MS to do its operating systems. By the time IBM had the bright idea of creating its own operating system for its PCs there were too many competing manufacturers and MS had become THE operating system they - and all their software suppliers used.

It's interesting how you conveniently "forgot" my example of Dell.

Regardless, IBM is just one software giant that Microsoft has unseated. Novell, Sun, SGI, SCO, and more are all examples of previously dominant software companies whose hold was broken by the upstart Microsoft. IBM did not partner with MS, they bought an OS from MS and bundled it. Then they decided to go their own way, but the competing product of MS beat them out.

MS is freely acknowledged by every software developer I have ever known or heard of as being an attrociously inefficient and bug-ridden system. Yet it remains the standard.

It remains the standard because the sum of its faults are less than those of the competition. MS may be the dominant standard, which explains a lot of this, however, it did not get there by beating people until they bought Windows. It was far more friendly and open to developers, unlike IBM, it did not tie the software to any particular hardware, unlike Apple, and it offered lucrative deals to hardware manufacturers for bundling, so that consumers could save money.

But we know that you don't like consumers saving money.

Well then, if we use that as our example anyone who approves of and enjoys sex has to be in favour of rape, too. Right?

Wrong. Sex is to rape as trade is to burglary.

[Guest eureka]

It never ceases to amaze me how everything is some form of fallacy that does not fit your narrow focus.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can cheerfully bend historic facts to suit whatever absurdity assails you at the moment.

To pick just one from your post, you say that Child Labour was all bit extinct before there were laws. Yet, Child Labour in Britain was alive and well long after hours and conditions were first legislated in 1833.

Enforcement was a little haphazard but conditions had begun to improve. They had even earlier than this through political pressure a quarter century earlier but not yet through law.

[Hugo]

It never ceases to amaze me how everything is some form of fallacy that does not fit your narrow focus.

What never ceases to amaze me is how many times you can lose an argument, stick your head in the sand and pop up a few weeks or months later spouting exactly the same nonsense. We already had the child-labour argument in another thread. You gave up, your points were indefensible.

The funniest point is that by far the worst exploitation of children was when they were in the "care" of government institutions. No less a person than Friedrich Engels condemned British governmental exploitation of children. When the laws were finally passed, they were not an attack upon capitalism but upon the state itself.

You were also unable to answer my contention that the reports on which your understanding of child labour are based were completely derelict as evidence, consisting mostly of testimony by doctors who had never seen child labour, or even a factory, in person and who refused to testify under oath.

The other thing that amuses me is that child labour is as old an institution as humankind. We went through thousands of years when children had to work as soon as they could walk. This seemed to be an immutable fact of life. Then we had capitalism and industrialisation, and soon after that child labour became history, and of all things you blame capitalism for child labour! To make an analogy, this is like blaming the police for a burglary after they caught the burglar who broke into your home.

[Guest eureka]

Sometimes I wonder whether your fixation causes an imaginative riot in your poor mind.

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.

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. Trying to divert that into Engels and much later events is one more example of your attempting to slip the noose when, as so often, you are wrong.

I did not base "my understanding of chikld labour" on those reports in the other thread. Those reports were something you brought in- again in trying to shift away from your errors. Everything I said about child labour in that other thread is accurate. You may also consider, if you can focus on anything, that I wrote of poverty, not labour.

I will agree with you that child labour is as old as humanity. I never said differently. However, I did NOT blame Capitalism for that. In fact, I have not placed blame on an ideology.

I do, though, most definitely blame the unfettered capitalism you seem to believe in for the abuses that were rampant before governments stepped in under the pressure of some who would not be described as Libertarians.

What this has to do with WalMart, I cannot imagine.