It is true globalisation, as practiced, harms USA consumers and allows for exploitation overseas. The left and right want "free trade agreements" (although misnamed). The right wants USA intervention overseas, and the left wants regulation here in USA. Both are wrong.
The left is correct when they say the right opposes the Kyoto Protocals so they can advance exploitation and degradation of the environment overseas. The right is correct when it says the left wants the Kyoto Protocals to lock down third world development. A pox on both their houses!
With free trade small businesses would encounter small businesses and develop trade on a ration a rational basis, never accumulating the critical mass to harm others. The results may not be as spectacular as what we get with the democrats and republicans, but neither is there the starvation, slaughter and destruction.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Globalisation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Free Trade is not trade as historically defined and practiced in the trading of products. It primarily based on moving production and factories from place to place anywhere in the world for the sake of cheaper labor. As such labor as a valuable tangible asset is deflated and an as a money standard affects the economies that are based on making money on money instead of making things. It is endless cycle of deflation of real values. For more see http://tapearch.com/tapartnews http://tapsearch.com/flatworld and http://www.bizarrepolitics.com/
Tapsearcher has a couple of fundamental errors...
1. If free trade is not trading of products free of subsidy or regulation, then what do you call the trade of products free of subsidy and regulation?
2. Free trade has been going on for millenia, what Tap calls "historically defined and practiced" is one contorted definition the comes out of the theory of comparative advantage, which is about 200 years old, and based on a labor theory of value, a theory that was disposed of by the austrian school of economics about 100 years ago.
3. A. There is nothing factual in the assertion that production and factories move from place to place in seek of cheaper labor. B. At no time is labor deflated as a valuable tangible asset in free trade, nor could it be in what I think you are talking about, and what is commonly called "globalisation." C. I agree making money on money is wrong, a violation of natural law. But you have misdefined "deflation, too, and so your argument goes no where.
I am not going to view your links becuase this post is so far off. Bone up on the Austrian school of economics so you can get some perspective, get your definitions straight, and try again. But you did come to the right place to learn, I am both a Longshoreman and a small business intertional trader, so I at least know what I am talking about.
Post a Comment