Free trade

Imagine if I went on /liberty/ and made a thread with this template:

I wouldn't be surprised if no one responded to my shitty thread.

I'm not a libertarian, actually.

By the way, here is the graph that shows that the economy of Sweden has been growing faster before government spending, taxes and regulations started to expand dramatically in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I also recommend you to read to following paper about the Nordic model written by Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck: ifn.se/storage/cms/85cb445b0e8042ae9429c75dccb51f69/75b3caf15d604a0b99fbc2fede8ebadf/pdf/BB13E20137A0BAE1D164308F02DF0C075EA75FC2/The Swedish Experiment.pdf?MediaArchive_ForceDownload=true&PropertyName=File1&ValueIndex=0

gee i wonder why the organizations directly responsible for exploiting the developing world would advocate global trade

also neoliberal economics are a joke even from an academic standpoint, these retards still defend pinochet

You would receive several posts debunking your shit-tier literature and several more trashing the author just for fun.

Now what?

wow!

sounds spooky. almost as spooky as a system that relies upon an invisible hand

Unlike you, they actually provide empirical evidence that supports their position.

...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. "Trade" would be free in a socialist economy. Why would socialists be interested in arguing about a feature of capitalism when we've already reached the conclusion that capitalism itself is inadequate?

Okay. Ignoring the fact that you've only established correlation, let's say you're right. What now? Did you think we'd be pro-regulation?

Furthermore, you've fallen for the GDP/GDP per capita meme = accurate measurement of individual standard of living and development in an economy. Unless you think things like affordability of health care, life expectancy, wages, are irrelevant, you'll have to do much better than what you show in this graph.

By your standard, we should rate Saudi Arabia as a better place to live than Chile, since the GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is higher than that of Chile.

economics is about as empirical as theology

I skimmed through some of the documents you linked.

Firstly the graph you posted. It's an opinion poll, one where the sample population is subject to extreme bias. Namely, your dealing with only economists (mostly professors) who rarely get high positions if they hold political/economic views left of liberal. Secondly, it was a panel whose members were specifically selected by IGM, an organization that already was campaigning for free market policy. It's through the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, which has been shilling for neoclassical economcis since the 70's. It's not reliable evidence to support a claim.

In regards to the documents themselves, while I haven't given them a full readthrough, they mostly just touch on the increase in GDP and similar quantification of economic growth resulting from free-market policy. This is known for a LONG time though (like 200+ years), and if it were as simple as JUST growth of GDP, then you'd be on to something. It's a bit more complicated than that, and the sources you listed allude to it a bit. First you have the problem that some studies show that developing countries do actually benefit from having limited tariffs in place (with some variability possibly due to the testing methods). Secondly, there is the admission that increases in GDP don't explicitly correlate with increases with real income or living standards, which is an inherent problem with such liberalization policies concentrating the "newly created" wealth within the uppermost class actually partaking in the larger trade operations. Combine that with a policy of reduced taxation on those highest earners, and you end up in a situation whereas the majority of people still see little benefit from the "open" policies.

...

Why should I believe the opinions of "professionals" that advocate policies that they will never suffer negative repercussions for supporting if they fail or underperform?

Free trade itself is great, allowing countries to specialise in those goods they can produce most effectively, and thus enforce comparative advantage on a global scale. However when it imposes no restrictions on the transfer of capital between participating countries, the result will be capitalists shifting production to the country with lower taxes/worker care requirements to save costs.

How exactly do "consumer choices" offset this? Working class people lose their jobs, which are not being replaced as other industries are also leaving the country. I'm pretty sure they don't give a shit that tropical fruit is half price when they're on the dole or have taken a large pay cut.

Yes it did. For example, Michigan's unemployment rate has fallen from 7.0% to 4.8% since NAFTA came into force: data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST260000000000003. In the years since NAFTA, U.S. trade with its North American neighbors has more than tripled, growing more rapidly than U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are the two largest destinations for U.S. exports, accounting for more than a third of the total.
Currently, fourteen million jobs rely on trade with Canada and Mexico, while the nearly two hundred thousand export-related jobs created annually by the pact pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than the jobs that were lost: piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/nafta-rejoinder-us-effects-are-clearly-positive-most-workers

Yes it did. NAFTA gave a major boost to Mexican farm exports to the United States, which have tripled since NAFTA's implementation. Hundreds of thousands of auto manufacturing jobs have also been created in the country, and most studies have found that the pact had a positive impact on Mexican productivity and consumer prices: fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf

That specialization thing is a myth. If you know someone else's processes you can make what they make, period.

You gotta be an American to believe that bullshit. Bet you think everyone else is so poor cause they aren't as educated as you too haha

Live in your memes nig. i will see you in communism.

Workers have little, if any, incentive to invest voluntarily in the socialist enterprise. Eirik Furubotn and Svetozar Pejovich have demonstrated this problem in a number of theoretical and empirical studies. Because the worker does not enjoy full ownership rights to the means of production, only the right of use, he is not free to recover any money invested into the enterprise in the event that he leaves the firm or is fired. From the worker’s point of view, it is more rational to “invest” one’s personal income in durable goods such as refrigerators, automobiles, and furniture—things that are treated as private property under the owner’s full control—rather than throw his money into a collectively owned pool that is not at his full disposal.

Even the graph says freer trade, not free
There are many things that regulate trade that people don't even consider and even lolberts don't want to get rid of. Lolberts might want to deregulate immigration and child labour laws and drugs, but even they don't think you should be able to by votes in an election or the presidency or such. Free trade is a political opinion pretending to be objective science.
At least freer trade is coherent.

The collective benefits, closed workers market"sub_market", the infinity higher wage"in the socialist phase that is", the democratic workplace etc.. is not enough ?

Here is the thing,
That is like saying no one will like taking trips to the public park because you only have the right to walk in it not to own it or build on it.
Communal property is non alienating, the sun, the air, the parks, the roads etc…

Wrong, the workers are free to democratically vote to fire workers or to expand and improve the factory with in the council of the workers "That is not part of the council of transportation, C o maintenance, C o energy etc.."

The only good thing Keynes was right about is this "if the poor have money the economy will be revived" le animal spirit took that from the polish Marxists that he was buddy with

Buddy did you read about Council communism ? or for that matter any Left communism lit ?

I'm always skeptical if something says "economists support" because the "economy" and the welfare of the public are two different things. While I understand the economists job is to focus on the economy and not the common good, economic growth doesn't mean shit if it's all going to billionaires.

Sure there is. There's borders too.

...

Poverty rates and GDP per capita behave as "mirror images" of one another: whenever GDP grows, poverty tends to decline (nber.org/papers/w15433.pdf). When average incomes rise, the average incomes of the poorest fifth of society rise proportionately. Economic growth tends to benefit the poor and everyone else in society proportionately (library1.nida.ac.th/worldbankf/fulltext/wps02587.pdf; documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/496121468149676299/pdf/WPS6568.pdf)

So yes, the "economy" and the welfare of the public ARE the same thing. Empirical studies suggest that economic growth always benefits everyone and never benefits only the rich.

Wasn't Marx himself for free trade (agreeing with Ricardo's opinion on the Corn Laws)?

Of course Marxists should be familiar with Ricardo's idea of comparative trade advantage. That is, suppose country A is more efficient at producing commodity X and Y than country B is, does it mean country B is fucked? Not necessarily, country A can specialize on what makes them more money and then country B can specialize on that other thing. On the other hand, it is risky to put all your eggs in one basked and there is also the infant-industry argument.

Free trade today has become a meaningless term, "free trade agreements" contain all sort of protectionist bullshit like patents, and even one-sided deals, where the rich country demands of the poor country to restrict its future decisions regarding tariffs and subsidies in some way, without putting itself under the same restrictions.

On the other hand, it is risky to put all your eggs in one basket*

Michigan's labor force participation rate also decreased during the same period of time, its more likely that many people just stopped looking for work then actually joblessness decreased.

freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2015/06/06/michigan-jobs-workforce-economy-labor/28545571/

If the people who left the labor force were still in it, the unemployment rate would be 9.1%

"GDP" is a bullshit measure of economic performance that is adjusted as necessary to meet the expectations of those calculating it

devinhelton.com/economics/gdp-and-cpi-are-broken

This. Economics as a profession is mostly just about fitting the data to the conclusion

Why do leftists hate economics?

Bourgeoise economics is pretty shit fam

And by "bourgeoise economics" you mean the kind of economics that is taken serioulsy by the scientific community and which is taught across prominent universities?

Thats the economics that generate the profits, yeah

...

there is no role for a government if it goes to the extreme end of "free trade"

Daily reminder that not a single Marxist or socialist has ever won either the Nobel Prize in Economics or the James Bates Clark Medal

inb4: b-but the scientific community is biased!!!

Nice appeal to authority

Here's a great article that absolutely btfo """"Free"""" trade

considering obama got a medal for being not george bush and not white i don't think that matters

Wasn't Marx' "support" for free trade purely cynical accelerationism?

Marx was an economist and reading him is no fun.

Do you really believe that people into e.g. astrophysics see themselves as part of some sort of scientific community that fucking economists are part of? Have you ever heard an astro guy talk about how this or that theory in his field was inspired by economics? The scientists either don't give enough of a fuck to look closer into econ than any other random asshole from the general population, or they righteously shit on it. Maybe go ask some climate scientists what they think of economists?

If you were familiar with how that prize for economists came into being, you would put Nobel's name in Dr Evil marks. And you are wrong anyway, as that famous Swedish porky bankster prize once went to Kantorovich.

...

This, economists are unable to grasp the idea of worker cooperatives freely engaging in exchange without corporate dictatorship.

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

hayekcenter.org/?p=1737
alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-economics
focus.ie.edu/economics-nobel-prize-does-not-exist