Good luck.
Both parties undertake the exchange because each expects to gain from it. Also, each will repeat the exchange next time (or refuse to) because his expectation has proved correct (or incorrect) in the recent past. Trade, or exchange, is engaged in precisely because both parties benefit; if they did not expect to gain, they would not agree to the exchange.
This is not an example of international trade, not even interstate trade, this is nano-economics. Where is the government subsidizing the production of the newspaper, another government with a printing press? This doesn't matter? Then why do free traders defend their policies with talk of governemnt subsidies and exchange rates?In addition, outsourcing grows global economies, and global markets, creating more opportunities for domestic industries. Protectionism doesn't protect wealth nor create it; It rations it out.
This more than anything smacks of socialism.increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living
It would certainly be nice to see this actually happen some day.Government, in every society, is the only lawful system of coercion. Taxation is a coerced exchange, and the heavier the burden of taxation on production, the more likely it is that economic growth will falter and decline. Other forms of government coercion (e.g., price controls or restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market) hamper and cripple market exchanges, while others (prohibitions on deceptive practices, enforcement of contracts) can facilitate voluntary exchanges.
Since this is in bold, I assume it is a major point. If so, then why waste your time trying to eliminate a 4-5% tax when there is the 35% income tax, 100% gas tax, 9% sales tax? Aren't you overestimating the damage tariffs are doing to the economy?One more point, you don't have the freedom to just bring anything into this country without it being inspected. And, it is certainly not coercive to charge a fee to offset the costs of inpection at the border.
Okay. As far as I am concerned we're off to a good start. No nonsense about "stop whining," juvenile reminders that "no job belongs to you," or the Limbaugh-Hegecock-Sullivan "jobs is jobs" BS -- "Get a job, any job and shut up, Mister Middle Class Professional! Or, should we say ex-middle class. Hee, hee, hee."
Nevertheless, discussing free markets and Red China together makes no sense. Red China does not play by rules, not even the WTO's rules.
Yes, I know the CIO Online thread was mostly about India. But Red China is a major player here also. India is a socialist country that permits some capitalist functions. Both are not all that respectful of intellectual property, though Red China is the worst offender by far.
Market socialism is, in fact, a contradiction in terms.
Yet, some praise Red China as "market socialism." It probably is an accurate description given their implementation of market factors along with Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP). But the Party owns the capital. Party members (and their "princelings") are the capitalists unlike the 1920s Soviet version of NEP where individual Russians (nepmen) were the capitalists. The Soviet put an end to it as it threatened to overtake communism and executed the nepmen. In Red China NEP is very successful and it benefits the Party members. Smart!
Protectionist policies do little to ensure national interest
Why do you guys always single out protectionism? Not all of our concerns call for restricting "free" trade. True free trade that is.
I have yet to see an answer to my question. To wit, what does sending our technology, manufacturing, and IT-enabled services off shore and importing those goods and services have to do with free trade?
It's not free trade it's offshoring? Okay. Why do some say we have to offshore to be competitive? Yet their argument goes, we benefit by offshoring, too! European and Japanese companies offshore to us!
Yes, they do. Another question, how can they offshore to us and still be competitive when our own corporations cannot? Yes, I know. Not that many jobs have gone offshore yet but it is estimated that the number will keep growing and growing.
Free trade was suppose to be about "comparative advantages." India and China offer labor of all types. That is their advantage, I suppose.
But how could they use that advantage had not our own government assisted them in building their infrastructures to support the industries being shipped to them by our own corporations?
Both our own government and our own corporations supported by our own taxpayers.
Then there's the pesky little problem of national security.
Yes, the simple fears of those who are not in academia.