Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Free Trade is Fair Trade

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 11:23:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Discuss the truth of the thread title.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 11:27:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It'd be more accurate to say that "Only free trade is fair trade"
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 11:28:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 11:27:55 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It'd be more accurate to say that "Only free trade is fair trade"

This is true.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 11:36:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think you would have some disputing what you mean by "fair trade" and what they would mean by "fair trade". - Although i would tend to agree with you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 3:02:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 11:23:37 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Discuss the truth of the thread title.

It is invalid.

Normal capitalism is all about trying to purchase things at the lowest price you can and to sell them at the highest price the market will tolerate.

Different producers will have differing values at which they can produce goods. Well established, large scale producers that are able to keep their costs low will succeed over others.

A banana plantation on fertile soil that employs child slaves will generally be able to produce banana's at lower prices than a less fertile one that is forced to pay workers a minimum wage.

Left to the devices of the free market the former will be favoured over the latter. Which is not 'fair'.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 3:37:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 3:02:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/19/2010 11:23:37 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Discuss the truth of the thread title.

It is invalid.

Normal capitalism is all about trying to purchase things at the lowest price you can and to sell them at the highest price the market will tolerate.

Different producers will have differing values at which they can produce goods. Well established, large scale producers that are able to keep their costs low will succeed over others.

A banana plantation on fertile soil that employs child slaves will generally be able to produce banana's at lower prices than a less fertile one that is forced to pay workers a minimum wage.

Left to the devices of the free market the former will be favoured over the latter. Which is not 'fair'.

Looking at your banana plantation example, you seem to be using two different variables. First, fertile vs. unfertile soil. Obviously, farming on fertile soil will be more profitable than one on unfertile soil. So what? This is a good thing. It means that resources will be allocated efficiently, and more goods will be produced overall.

Second, you argue that a firm using slave labor is more profitable than one using a minimum wage. First of all, slave labor isn't part of a free market, obviously. But fortunately slavery has been all but abolished in the vast majority of the world, so this isn't a problem.

But maybe, by 'child slaves,' you mean sweatshop workers that work for very low wages. You are correct that businesses in an area where there are no minimum wages will be more profitable than businesses in an area with minimum wages, all else equal. But you also seem to believe that the workers would be better off with a minimum wage. This is completely false.

In a free market, wages are determined by the marginal productivity of labor. That is, if an hour of unskilled labor brings $1 of revenue to a firm, then that firm will pay no more than $1 an hour for unskilled labor. For hiring that worker to be profitable, it must pay some amount less than $1 an hour. That amount will, however, be close to $1 an hour. Let's say a firm wanted to pay its workers 50c an hour while their marginal productivity was $1 an hour. That firm would get 50c an hour of profit per worker. But, paying so much lower than the marginal productivity of labor would create an opportunity for other firms to profit. They could offer those workers, say, 55c an hour to work for them. The workers would take the new job, and the 2nd firm would get a higher profit. And this process repeats itself until the market wage is very very close to the marginal productivity of labor.

What does all that have to do with the minimum wage? If a government mandates a minimum wage below the marginal productivity of labor, it will have no effect. But if it mandates a wage higher than the marginal productivity of labor, it will have a disastrous effect. It will make hiring workers unprofitable, which creates unemployment. So a minimum wage can only do one of two things, either absolutely nothing, or cause unemployment.

But what about child labor laws and workplace regulations? Surely we need those to protect workers? Again, wrong. If you look at the history of these things in the U.S. and other industrialized countries, they were only instituted after they became unnecessary. Child labor laws only went into effect after the vast majority of children stopped working in factories. Same with the 40 hour workweek and other rules. But what about in the 3rd world? There, these things have had terrible effects. When Western companies have been forced to stop using child labor in 3rd world countries, what do you think happened to those children? They went to school, graduated, and went on to live happy, productive lives once the evil corporations stopped employing them? Nope. 3rd world countries have child laborers because they can't afford not to. Families wouldn't be able to support children if they didn't work. So, when these Western companies were forced to fire these children, they were just forced to work in the black market, often in worse and more dangerous industries, such as prostitution.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 3:53:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 3:10:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
What about monopolies? What are your guys' views on monopolies?

They're terrible. Fortunately, they are not a problem for free markets, as monopolies can only exist through government intervention.

To see why this is true, we have to look at what exactly a monopoly is. Is it when a firm has an extremely large share of the market? That definition doesn't really work. What if a firm has a large market share because it sells the best products at the lowest price? This could hardly be considered a problem. What makes a monopoly a monopoly is that it controls the market because it can prevent other firms from entering the market and competing with it. This sort of market is characterized by low quality goods at high costs.

Where do we see low quality goods at high prices? Only where the government intervenes to stop competition. Markets with intellectual "property" protection. Roads and highways. (It doesn't matter that they don't cost anything to use, or cost very little through tolls. The cost that taxpayers have to pay is still high, even if the price is zero.) Public schools. (This counts, even though private schools exist. Taxpayers are forced to pay for the schools even if they don't want to use them.) Police. Courts. Any other government controlled industry. The only way a true monopoly can ever exist is through government interference.

What about cartels? How does the free market deal with those? It doesn't have to. Cartels, throughout history, have quickly collapsed in a free market, because of the huge incentive to cheat. But government can screw things up here too. Take railroads during the 19th century, for example. A lot of people had a problem with railroads charging more for "short hauls" than for "long hauls," so the ICC was set up to regulate the railroad industry. What happened? Railroads started charging the same amount for short and long hauls. But they so by charging more for the long hauls, rather than less for the short hauls. Before the ICC, railroads tried to set up cartels to keep prices for long hauls up, but they always failed. Once the ICC was created to regulate the railroads, the railroads took over the ICC, and used it to enforce cartel agreements. This sort of thing has continued to happen with every other regulatory agency.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 4:01:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Public school costs are pretty sick. Estimates made by state agencies put "tuition" at $8000/student-year. Those figures don't include building costs though... which adds about $5000 to $15,000 per year. BUT U NEED UR FOOOOOTBAAAAAALLLLL

Private school's average tuition is $2000-$3000 per year.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 5:11:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 4:01:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
Public school costs are pretty sick. Estimates made by state agencies put "tuition" at $8000/student-year. Those figures don't include building costs though... which adds about $5000 to $15,000 per year. BUT U NEED UR FOOOOOTBAAAAAALLLLL

Private school's average tuition is $2000-$3000 per year.

Can you get me some sources on this? That would be amazing.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 5:15:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 5:11:24 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
At 9/19/2010 4:01:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
Public school costs are pretty sick. Estimates made by state agencies put "tuition" at $8000/student-year. Those figures don't include building costs though... which adds about $5000 to $15,000 per year. BUT U NEED UR FOOOOOTBAAAAAALLLLL

Private school's average tuition is $2000-$3000 per year.

Can you get me some sources on this? That would be amazing.

This study (http://www.cato.org...) has a bunch of info on that.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 5:29:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You know no one will ever accept anything from cato.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Census numbers:
http://www2.census.gov...
Total spending is $506,771,415,000 on public elementary-secondary school systems

http://factfinder.census.gov...
33.7 million in elementary school, 16.4 million in high school
10.4% of those go to private school, and 1.7% are homeschooled.

$50677141500 / ((33.7+16.4)*10^6*(1-.104-.017)) = $11900/student-year

BY THE GUMMINTS OWN ACCOUNT

I mean seriously if we just gave 20k/yr to families with 2 kids, they could send them to private school and have enough left over for health insurance and seconds at mcdonalds.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 1:14:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 3:37:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/19/2010 3:02:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/19/2010 11:23:37 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Discuss the truth of the thread title.

It is invalid.

Normal capitalism is all about trying to purchase things at the lowest price you can and to sell them at the highest price the market will tolerate.

Different producers will have differing values at which they can produce goods. Well established, large scale producers that are able to keep their costs low will succeed over others.

A banana plantation on fertile soil that employs child slaves will generally be able to produce banana's at lower prices than a less fertile one that is forced to pay workers a minimum wage.

Left to the devices of the free market the former will be favoured over the latter. Which is not 'fair'.

Looking at your banana plantation example, you seem to be using two different variables. First, fertile vs. unfertile soil.

What is wrong with that, we live in a world of variables.

Obviously, farming on fertile soil will be more profitable than one on unfertile soil. So what? This is a good thing. It means that resources will be allocated efficiently, and more goods will be produced overall.

That's why we have free trade, the question is of fairness.

Second, you argue that a firm using slave labor is more profitable than one using a minimum wage. First of all, slave labor isn't part of a free market, obviously. But fortunately slavery has been all but abolished in the vast majority of the world, so this isn't a problem.

Why isn't slave labour part of the free market? The free market suggests no restructions on the flow of money, not political equality.
Anyway Chocolate produced by child slaves is still sold in western supermarkets, sometimes with a nice shiny free trade label stuck on it. It is still a problem.

But maybe, by 'child slaves,' you mean sweatshop workers that work for very low wages. You are correct that businesses in an area where there are no minimum wages will be more profitable than businesses in an area with minimum wages, all else equal. But you also seem to believe that the workers would be better off with a minimum wage. This is completely false.

You don't believe that there is any disparity in quality of life between someone who works for a penny a day and someone who works for $5 a day?

In a free market, wages are determined by the marginal productivity of labor. That is, if an hour of unskilled labor brings $1 of revenue to a firm, then that firm will pay no more than $1 an hour for unskilled labor. For hiring that worker to be profitable, it must pay some amount less than $1 an hour. That amount will, however, be close to $1 an hour. Let's say a firm wanted to pay its workers 50c an hour while their marginal productivity was $1 an hour. That firm would get 50c an hour of profit per worker. But, paying so much lower than the marginal productivity of labor would create an opportunity for other firms to profit. They could offer those workers, say, 55c an hour to work for them. The workers would take the new job, and the 2nd firm would get a higher profit. And this process repeats itself until the market wage is very very close to the marginal productivity of labor.

What does all that have to do with the minimum wage? If a government mandates a minimum wage below the marginal productivity of labor, it will have no effect. But if it mandates a wage higher than the marginal productivity of labor, it will have a disastrous effect. It will make hiring workers unprofitable, which creates unemployment. So a minimum wage can only do one of two things, either absolutely nothing, or cause unemployment.


That is all well and good, but quite frankly the free market will still favour employers that give the lowest wages. Some of these wages will be subsistence wages, or even worse. That is not in the grand scheme of human happiness, 'fair'.

But what about child labor laws and workplace regulations? Surely we need those to protect workers? Again, wrong. If you look at the history of these things in the U.S. and other industrialized countries, they were only instituted after they became unnecessary. Child labor laws only went into effect after the vast majority of children stopped working in factories.

That is not the model in the UK.

Same with the 40 hour workweek and other rules. But what about in the 3rd world? There, these things have had terrible effects. When Western companies have been forced to stop using child labor in 3rd world countries, what do you think happened to those children? They went to school, graduated, and went on to live happy, productive lives once the evil corporations stopped employing them? Nope. 3rd world countries have child laborers because they can't afford not to. Families wouldn't be able to support children if they didn't work. So, when these Western companies were forced to fire these children, they were just forced to work in the black market, often in worse and more dangerous industries, such as prostitution.

So that is why we have free trade, which gives a fair living wage to workers.

You can argue that free trade is right and proper due to these wonderful holy rules of the market, but it is not fair. It is ultimately about exploitation.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:30:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 1:14:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/19/2010 3:37:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/19/2010 3:02:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/19/2010 11:23:37 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Discuss the truth of the thread title.

It is invalid.

Normal capitalism is all about trying to purchase things at the lowest price you can and to sell them at the highest price the market will tolerate.

Different producers will have differing values at which they can produce goods. Well established, large scale producers that are able to keep their costs low will succeed over others.

A banana plantation on fertile soil that employs child slaves will generally be able to produce banana's at lower prices than a less fertile one that is forced to pay workers a minimum wage.

Left to the devices of the free market the former will be favoured over the latter. Which is not 'fair'.

Looking at your banana plantation example, you seem to be using two different variables. First, fertile vs. unfertile soil.

What is wrong with that, we live in a world of variables.

Obviously, farming on fertile soil will be more profitable than one on unfertile soil. So what? This is a good thing. It means that resources will be allocated efficiently, and more goods will be produced overall.

That's why we have free trade, the question is of fairness.
I don't see how "fair" or "unfair" apply to things like fertile and unfertile soil, unless the farmer on fertile soil somehow stole the land from the other farmer.

Second, you argue that a firm using slave labor is more profitable than one using a minimum wage. First of all, slave labor isn't part of a free market, obviously. But fortunately slavery has been all but abolished in the vast majority of the world, so this isn't a problem.

Why isn't slave labour part of the free market? The free market suggests no restructions on the flow of money, not political equality.
Anyway Chocolate produced by child slaves is still sold in western supermarkets, sometimes with a nice shiny free trade label stuck on it. It is still a problem.
The free market means that the market is free of aggressive force. Usually this refers to government, but it could apply to slave-owners as well. And a single example of slavery in the modern world doesn't make it a significant problem. There are still very very few slaves compared to the vast majority of the world's history.

But maybe, by 'child slaves,' you mean sweatshop workers that work for very low wages. You are correct that businesses in an area where there are no minimum wages will be more profitable than businesses in an area with minimum wages, all else equal. But you also seem to believe that the workers would be better off with a minimum wage. This is completely false.

You don't believe that there is any disparity in quality of life between someone who works for a penny a day and someone who works for $5 a day?
That doesn't mean that a minimum wage improves quality of life. If you forced the employer paying a penny a day to pay all of his workers a minimum wage of $5 a day, he would just not have any workers, as explained in my next paragraph.

In a free market, wages are determined by the marginal productivity of labor. That is, if an hour of unskilled labor brings $1 of revenue to a firm, then that firm will pay no more than $1 an hour for unskilled labor. For hiring that worker to be profitable, it must pay some amount less than $1 an hour. That amount will, however, be close to $1 an hour. Let's say a firm wanted to pay its workers 50c an hour while their marginal productivity was $1 an hour. That firm would get 50c an hour of profit per worker. But, paying so much lower than the marginal productivity of labor would create an opportunity for other firms to profit. They could offer those workers, say, 55c an hour to work for them. The workers would take the new job, and the 2nd firm would get a higher profit. And this process repeats itself until the market wage is very very close to the marginal productivity of labor.

What does all that have to do with the minimum wage? If a government mandates a minimum wage below the marginal productivity of labor, it will have no effect. But if it mandates a wage higher than the marginal productivity of labor, it will have a disastrous effect. It will make hiring workers unprofitable, which creates unemployment. So a minimum wage can only do one of two things, either absolutely nothing, or cause unemployment.


That is all well and good, but quite frankly the free market will still favour employers that give the lowest wages. Some of these wages will be subsistence wages, or even worse. That is not in the grand scheme of human happiness, 'fair'.
What the hell are you talking about? The free market does not "favour employers that give the lowest wages." That's complete bullshi­t. As I said, if an employer pays below market wages, he will lose employees, which makes wages tend toward the market wage. They won't all be exactly the same, but there won't be any significant difference. Is it "fair" that some people have low wages while other don't? What difference does it make? The free market is the best possible way to help these people, what difference does it make that it isn't fair in the "grand scheme of human happiness," whatever that means?

But what about child labor laws and workplace regulations? Surely we need those to protect workers? Again, wrong. If you look at the history of these things in the U.S. and other industrialized countries, they were only instituted after they became unnecessary. Child labor laws only went into effect after the vast majority of children stopped working in factories.

That is not the model in the UK.
OK

Same with the 40 hour workweek and other rules. But what about in the 3rd world? There, these things have had terrible effects. When Western companies have been forced to stop using child labor in 3rd world countries, what do you think happened to those children? They went to school, graduated, and went on to live happy, productive lives once the evil corporations stopped employing them? Nope. 3rd world countries have child laborers because they can't afford not to. Families wouldn't be able to support children if they didn't work. So, when these Western companies were forced to fire these children, they were just forced to work in the black market, often in worse and more dangerous industries, such as prostitution.

So that is why we have free trade, which gives a fair living wage to workers.

You can argue that free trade is right and proper due to these wonderful holy rules of the market, but it is not fair. It is ultimately about exploitation.
Unfair? Perhaps in the cosmic sense that it's unfair that some people get struck by lightning and others win the lottery. But this sense of the world is completely arbitrary and meaningless. Nothing's fair in this sense, nothing ever will be fair. The fairest and most just solution is still a free market. And as for "exploitation," this doesn't mean anything. You aren't saying anything. Someone is being "exploited" because they're being paid what their labor is worth? If you mean that some people making a lot less than other people somehow constitutes "exploitation," then you aren't using any meaningful definition of the word.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:36:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:30:17 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The free market means that the market is free of aggressive force. Usually this refers to government, but it could apply to slave-owners as well. And a single example of slavery in the modern world doesn't make it a significant problem. There are still very very few slaves compared to the vast majority of the world's history.

Slavery is profitable. But freedom is more profitable still. Manumission was common in the south until it became clear that it would end slavery, and government made it illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 7:27:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:30:17 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Unfair? Perhaps in the cosmic sense that it's unfair that some people get struck by lightning and others win the lottery. But this sense of the world is completely arbitrary and meaningless. Nothing's fair in this sense, nothing ever will be fair. The fairest and most just solution is still a free market. And as for "exploitation," this doesn't mean anything. You aren't saying anything. Someone is being "exploited" because they're being paid what their labor is worth? If you mean that some people making a lot less than other people somehow constitutes "exploitation," then you aren't using any meaningful definition of the word.

Well in that case you have no business being on a thread talking about fair trade, you don't care two hoots about fair trade.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 7:31:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 1:14:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You can argue that free trade is right and proper due to these wonderful holy rules of the market, but it is not fair. It is ultimately about exploitation.

What makes it unfair and exploitation is caused by government intervention into the market.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 10:11:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 7:27:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:30:17 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Unfair? Perhaps in the cosmic sense that it's unfair that some people get struck by lightning and others win the lottery. But this sense of the world is completely arbitrary and meaningless. Nothing's fair in this sense, nothing ever will be fair. The fairest and most just solution is still a free market. And as for "exploitation," this doesn't mean anything. You aren't saying anything. Someone is being "exploited" because they're being paid what their labor is worth? If you mean that some people making a lot less than other people somehow constitutes "exploitation," then you aren't using any meaningful definition of the word.

Well in that case you have no business being on a thread talking about fair trade, you don't care two hoots about fair trade.

"Fair trade" refers to trade with restrictions such as minimum wages and labor regulations. That's what the phrase commonly means, and that's what this thread is talking about. The point is that trade with no restrictions is fairer than trade with restrictions, not that somehow free trade, or anything else for that matter, somehow magically fixes all of the world's injustices.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:43:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 10:11:46 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/20/2010 7:27:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:30:17 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Unfair? Perhaps in the cosmic sense that it's unfair that some people get struck by lightning and others win the lottery. But this sense of the world is completely arbitrary and meaningless. Nothing's fair in this sense, nothing ever will be fair. The fairest and most just solution is still a free market. And as for "exploitation," this doesn't mean anything. You aren't saying anything. Someone is being "exploited" because they're being paid what their labor is worth? If you mean that some people making a lot less than other people somehow constitutes "exploitation," then you aren't using any meaningful definition of the word.

Well in that case you have no business being on a thread talking about fair trade, you don't care two hoots about fair trade.

"Fair trade" refers to trade with restrictions such as minimum wages and labor regulations. That's what the phrase commonly means, and that's what this thread is talking about. The point is that trade with no restrictions is fairer than trade with restrictions,

No one has made that case.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.