Free Trade

>>99989181
They know nothing about economics and parrot anything people who seem to be going against the rest say since they want to stand out because they've been ignored their whole life.

>>99989181
>I know nothing about economics and I have a very unnuanced view of free trade.

>>99989809

Let me guess... Your position is

>Diffuse costs among the general public to redistribute that wealth to specific industries in my country

That's welfare. It also creates shittier products.

Against unlimited free trade thank you very much.
Apart from the obvious strategical implications and local development implications aswell as limits and drawbacks to the hypercentralisation it causes, think of the vulnerable, risky and destructive megavities around the globe, one should consider the consequences of unbound free trade in times of crisis.
The EU serves excellently as a model of the world in this regard: the discrepant capacities, numerous cultures and ideological differences make it so that central authority is effectively impossible and unwanted, while the open trade allows every issue, however local, to stain the entire area.
Do that on a world scale and every tiny issue can go global without real option to stop it, the divisions in the markets serve the purpose of sections of a ship: they contain the breach and make the whole more easily salvagable.

>>99989809

>1 post

>>99989181
Nobody cares about the economics. It is about getting the jobs back instead of letting chinese 10 year olds do it for 1 penny an hour.

>>99990750
No. My position hinges on the fact that labor and capital is not perfectly mobile across industries, especially in the short-run. In the long-run, its mobility is still far from perfect but better. Any gains from trade are always way overrated precisely because this.

Second, it's impossible for countries to develop under free trade, unless you're the first country to do it because you will get destroyed in the international market.

>>99992392

That was a whole lot of gibberish without a substantial point.

>megavities

>centralization

Occurs when there isn't free trade

>central authority is effectively impossible

You don't need central authority in free trade

>local issues stain the entire area

Actually, free trade allows an economy to me protected from individual unique problems of that country

>>99993643

Infant industry protection really doesn't work.

Without the competition, you'll get inefficiencies. Once you open up your market (which you'll eventually have to do), you'll be crushed anyways.

>>99993387

Well, how about we just raise taxes and pay people to dig ditches?

At least that won't raise the price of products.

>>99995129
It depends. It worked in some countries and not in others. It's dependent on the kind of institutions the countries have. Namely because literally all countries have developed through infant industry protection - particularly the US and Germany.

>>99995129
For more examples, you have Portugal before communists took over, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, France...

>>99995506
Price won't rise you are just a pussy who can't handle some change.

>>99996794

Of course it will lol.

Are you retarded?

>>99989602
No. Tarrifs were a mode of revenue for countries before we started implementing income tax. For many years people equated income tax (tax on labour) as equal to slavery once removed.

It's no debate that if the government were to take 100% of your wages you would be a slave. If they take 50% as they do in Canada what does that make you?

make norway greit again