Free trade, automatization and how it affects common people

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Free trade sounds great, and between two or more countries with roughly equal respect for human rights, there isn't a problem with it which I can see. The problem is: not all countries are equal in that respect.

This is the crux of the issue as I see it too. Free trade deals should only exist between countries with equal worker protections. If the US demanded that of their free trade partners in underdeveloped countries, and Europe demanded that of their underdeveloped partners like the US then it could actually improve worker protections worldwide.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

Minimum wage aside though developed nations have to ensure worker safety and injury compensation, provide insurance, and make other accomodations that ensure the health and safety of the worker. Then there are environmental protections that make sure someone doesn't make a quick buck by poisoning the air all of us have to breathe.

All of those things drive up the cost of doing business, and if you permit free trade with a country that doesn't require all of those protections then the businesses in the developed country can never compete with the businesses getting away with murder abroad.

These deals have provisions that ostensibly require all parties to follow these sorts of regulations in order to sign the deal in the first place, but in practice it doesn't seem to matter.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I had something of an epiphany just now. Let me break it down for you.

The economics concept of "there's no such thing as a free lunch" also applies to laws. In order for a law to be relevant, it must be enforced. Depending on the level of actual, deeds-not-words opposition to the law, the time and effort needed for enforcement varies. In short, laws cost money.

Consider immigration law. There are millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, and plans to deal with the problem partially are estimated in the billions of dollars. That money needs to come from somewhere. How does a set of laws which is so expensive justify itself? How can we actually enforce the immigration laws we already have without going broke in the process?

In order for a law to make sense, it has to make more money than it costs to enforce. The laws of a nation help to shape its economic systems and thus its level of prosperity; thus, it is possible for a law to justify its own costs and essentially turn a profit for its people. However, any law which costs more to enforce than it's enforcement benefits its economy is a drain on its people.

This is why the best government is strong but with a narrow set of foci, instead of one which has its hands in everything. Only a certain subset of possible laws justify their own enforcement costs.

In regards to regulating international trade, smugglers exist. As discussed earlier in this thread, granting additional rights/privileged to local labor encourages the movement of those jobs to foreign labor without this privileges/rights... and the greater the disparity, the stronger the incentive. Thus, the more privileges granted to labor, the greater the costs in terms of enforcement - regulating trade costs more.

And smugglers can be a determined enemy. Just ask late 18th century Britain about a bunch of Boston smugglers who fought their attempts to regulate trade... on fucking tea. Enforcement in that case proved completely beyond their means.

So temper your idealism, folks. Freedom very literally isn't free, and the more freedom you intend to grant, the more impossible you may find it to hold onto the more baseline freedoms. That which is most important in law must be prioritized and done well before moving on to relatively trivial matters... and there are going to be things government simply cannot sustain.

Past a certain point, trying to improve things for labor doesn't help, but instead makes things worse.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Your perspective is money centric. But there is a deeper epiphany to be had when you realize that money is fictional. It is merely the traditional means to facilitate 'the sharing of resources'. It exists as a concept only so long as we believe in it. And immutably linked with the market is the fact that some organizations and indiviudals will disproportionately gain advantage over others. And that gain is currently not related to the benefit they are providing, thus the incentives are not correctly laid down to guide people to fields where they can do the most good.

The concept of money in current capitalist society is so fundamentally broken that any evaluation of monetary worth will fail to give true meaning. Instead one should evaluate things on the benefit they bring to society as a whole. How one defines 'benefit' is truly among the most important questions. I am of the opinion that in this context 'benefit' is the power to accomplish ones goals (perhaps through technological automation), enjoyment, and survival.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

¡So temper your idealism, folks. Freedom very literally isn't free, and the more freedom you intend to grant, the more impossible you may find it to hold onto the more baseline freedoms. That which is most important in law must be prioritized and done well before moving on to relatively trivial matters... and there are going to be things government simply cannot sustain.

Past a certain point, trying to improve things for labor doesn't help, but instead makes things worse.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Your perspective is money centric. But there is a deeper epiphany to be had when you realize that money is fictional. It is merely the traditional means to facilitate 'the sharing of resources'. It exists as a concept only so long as we believe in it.