Tweet
Public bodies suffer more because of a number of reasons, not least being the purses are bigger and the officials earn less and so it's easier to bribe.
-
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry. -
Of course Libor and FX rigging are pretty damn big corruption cases.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
corrected.Originally posted by Aeson View Post
Very few free trade agreements have labour components to improve the living and working conditions in the poorer partners. The effect is the labour in the wealthier partners have to settle for less to keep competitive with their poorer partners.
The wealthy 1st world labourer gets poorer. The poorer 3rd world labourer gets a wealthier boss.There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.Comment
-
...hasn't labor conditions in Mexico improved over time?No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
Maybe one of threads should discuss the non Olympics discussion and the other should actually discuss the Olympics
Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
Free trade is an equalizer. It improves things only if you consider the whole. Consider why Aeson (Philippines) says it is a good thing while others (living in the 1st world) says it is a bad thing. While there is certainly a small class of "New Money" in China, overall China has seen the greatest number of people lifted out of poverty in human history in only 20 years.“It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of ManComment
-
I would say the same if I was in the US. My business is in the US after all, I lived most of my life there, and my family lives there. I understand that specific individuals can be hurt when transitioning to a better system. It doesn't make the better system wrong.
When the World Bank financed huge "reforestation" projects in China that lead to a lower prices of apples in the US, my family was hurt. My dad manages and consults with many apple orchards. I still think that the projects in China were a very good thing, both economically and environmentally, and that most of humanity is already better off for it. Surviving US apple producers adapted and grew new varieties, and this has been better for consumers. But it does seem "unfair". The reality is that it was unfair to begin with, and this was a small step towards making it more fair. We need far more projects like the Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project, and it can be done in a way that leads to higher wages and quality of life for everyone in short order.
I am taking a long-term (not necessarily very long) perspective on the whole, rather than weighting any populations above or below others. Assessments based solely on "what's best for me" is the cause of most of the world's problems. When designing a system it needs to be done from a very different perspective.
Free trade is a benefit to the economy as a whole, and to most people, and to all people given a long enough time-frame. There are some individuals who can be hurt by it in the short term, but there are far more individuals who are hurt by the lack of it, and we all are hurt dramatically by the lack of it throughout history.
There are other factors like Sparky mentions, that are very bad. Lack of worker protections and low wages are bad. They are bad with free trade, they are bad without it. It isn't a negative of free trade, and generally still exist because of centuries of non-free trade and immigration restrictions.Comment
-
Well-reasoned, sir - and I say that as something of a labor radical...Comment
-
Free trade only benefits the wealthy (Like Trump and Carlos Slim). It isn't lifting people overall. China has seen the greatest number of people lifted out of poverty because of technology and manufacturing. Favorable fair trade agreements too. When Trump brought up fair trade I laughed. He has no clue what it means.Originally posted by pchang View Post
Free trade has a habit of screwing the smaller country. The big country gets the benefits... rather the elite in the big country.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Free trade does not benefit the majority. It isn't some cure all tonic. It is more harmful than beneficial. I will continue to dispute the assertion that it helps everybody. Again, it helps the rich ******* businessman (Trump).
It also very wrong to suggest it is the key reason why certain countries grew.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Who do you think unFree Trade helps? Lobby groups who demand the tariffs or the common man?Originally posted by Giancarlo View PostOne day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Favorable trade agreements that protect the poor in other countries is not equivalent to free trade. Free trade just causes something like the biggest environmental and economic disasters (Shell in Nigeria for example).Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
All I view free trade as is a way for the elite in one country to screw over the vast amounts of poor people in other countries.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
You've not answered the question - how does having tariffs or surcharges on goods help the poor?One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
He won't answer because he knows he is wrong. Higher prices on the daily things poor people need does not help the poor and everyone benefits from those lower prices and increased competition on the macro scale. The money saved due to those lower prices can then be used in other ways either to help raise living standards or to increase savings and investment thus helping to improve the economy.
Note to Fez: None of this has anything to do with "Reaganomics" which is an argument about top marginal tax rates. Please at least know what terms mean before you throw them around.Last edited by Dinner; August 11, 2016, 13:36.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
This is absolutely irrelevant to any point I am making. It is obvious you have bought into neocorportatist propaganda. My point has nothing to do with tariffs. Reread what I HAVE WROTE.Originally posted by Dauphin View PostFor there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
Comment