does free trade work?

[malakadang]

Free trade? I don't think it can exist. There will always be boundaries and restrictions set in a market. In saying that, I'm against it - competition aides growth and therefore a stronger economy.

It can.
No.
There is more competition in a free market.

 

[blazinfasstt]

he said that we will value children because there will be fewer of them and more resources, there are no fewer children, there may be more. there is an increasing lack of resources.

i do not see how he proved there would be less child abuse

also

govern
a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in
this is what your private police will do.

 

[malakadang]

he said that we will value children because there will be fewer of them and more resources, there are no fewer children, there may be more. there is an increasing lack of resources.

I'm not sure where he was going with this, so I can't really debate it.

i do not see how he proved there would be less child abuse

If you put spend money, time and effort into something you will appreciate it more. That would be his reasoning. In a state where everything is private, you'll have to spend money on your kids to educate, give them health cover etc. Thus take better care of them.

also

govern
a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in
this is what your private police will do.

A private police will work completely differently to what it is today.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf

 

[blazinfasstt]

I'm not sure where he was going with this, so I can't really debate it.


If you put spend money, time and effort into something you will appreciate it more. That would be his reasoning. In a state where everything is private, you'll have to spend money on your kids to educate, give them health cover etc. Thus take better care of them.


A private police will work completely differently to what it is today.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf

ok... so you are arguing for police to revise their techniques?

also, having to spend money on a child education will not make parents do it.
look at many poorer countries. they have many children and they only send one to school to help out the rest of the family.
making education and everything cost money will not make people spend money on their childrens educations. look at all the parents who do not even try to fund their childs university education

it is cheaper, in your scenario, to get kids working as soon as they are able, maybe 12 years of age, than to send them to school and educate them.

 

[blazinfasstt]

in your source, when the author is asked for an example of a successful anarchic society---he says you.

we are governed by morals, some more than others. people with strong morals are seen as more capable and respectable humans in our society. so, even unconciously, we admire and seek to be governed.
you would trust your life to a person completely governed by morals. (well most ppl and depending on the morals)

also i searched for some criticisms of his books and found lots.

from one criticism of his book on universally preferable behavior

Proof 1

If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who
speak falsely… Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable behaviour.5

Of course, it is difficult to critique this because no clear definition of “universally preferable behavior” is given in the book, and because none of these statements follow from what was said before.

If I argue against UPB, I have not shown a preference for truth over falsehood, only a preference against UPB (for example, I might still prefer to lie to the Nazis about some Jews I am hiding.) Even if I did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because many other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood. Also, Molyneux seems to be saying that objective moral values exist because we have the opinion that moral values exist, which is not the same as demonstrating that moral values really exist.
Proof 2

1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
2. Man is a living organism.
3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.
4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and
practice of universally preferred behaviour.
5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.6

You may notice this is actually the same as Proof 1, and carries all the same problems. Notice also that “practice of universally preferred behavior” in premise 3 has become “acceptance and practice of universally preferred behavior” in premise 4.
Proof 3

1. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported by empirical observation.
2. If the concept of “universally preferable behaviour” is valid, then mankind should believe in
universally preferable behaviour.
3. All men believe in universally preferable behaviour.
4. Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the validity of universally preferable behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is not valid.7

Premise 2 is question-begging. Molyneux assumes that “mankind should…” as part of his argument that should is a valid concept. Likewise, if I start my argument assuming that Nazism is moral, I can easily “prove” that Nazism is moral.

Premise 3 is clearly false.

Premise 4 is a confused way of saying, “Evidence exists that UPB exists, so it exists.” That statement by itself is fine (except that he has not shown us such evidence), but notice how none of these statements follow from any of the others! It is like reading a book that says:

1. For Tyler Cowen to be right about the economy, he must have evidence.
2. If theism is true, it is immoral to be unaware that gods exist.
3. Every culture has believed in gods.
4. Therefore, all milk is nervous.

After nearly every sentence in this book, I had to stop and ask “Wait, what?”
Proof 4

1. Choices are almost infinite.
2. Most human beings make very similar choices.
3. Therefore not all choices can be equal.
4. Therefore universally preferable choices must be valid.8

Those who have studied logic are already shaking their heads in disbelief. But imagine: there are 120 pages of this!

Premise 1 is clearly false. Premise 3 is ambiguous and does not follow from premises 1 and 2. By “equal,” does Molyneux mean “popular?” Finally, premise 4 doesn’t follow from the other three. Even if all choices were not morally equal (which has not been established by this argument), it wouldn’t mean that some choices are universally preferable.
Proof 5

1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.
2. Man is the most successful organism.
3. Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
4. Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.
5. Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
6. Therefore universally preferable behaviour must be valid.9

Premise 1 is ambiguous, and either false or tautological.

Premise 2 is very unclear: if we’re talking about height, the giraffe is the most successful. If we’re talking about numbers, ants and many species of bacteria are more successful. Etc.

For Premise 3 to follow from the first two premises, we would have to know that UPB is the only thing that contributes to “success,” whatever that means.

In premise 4, “distinctive” is ambiguous.

Premises 5 and 6 don’t follow from the other premises – they are complete non sequiters. And what is Molyneux trying to establish, here? That whatever leads to successful reproduction is moral? Why should he choose that? And if so, does that mean that killing others to become king, maintain a harem, and father hundreds of children is moral?
Conclusion

I get the impression that one day Molyneux was impressed by a book with many sections of numbered statements, the last always beginning with “Therefore…”, then decided to write his own book just like it, without first learning anything about how logic or argument work.

i did some more looking and found a crap load of videos on youtube picking apart his arguments.


this is why i will not give that book a read

sorry to do the whole stick man argument but these arguments are embarrassing to him. also, the only thing he is known for is a radio show and cult-leader status

 

[blazinfasstt]

in your source, when the author is asked for an example of a successful anarchic society---he says you.

we are governed by morals, some more than others. people with strong morals are seen as more capable and respectable humans in our society. so, even unconciously, we admire and seek to be governed.
you would trust your life to a person completely governed by morals. (well most ppl and depending on the morals)

also i searched for some criticisms of his books and found lots.

from one criticism of his book on universally preferable behavior

Proof 1

If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who
speak falsely… Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable behaviour.5

Of course, it is difficult to critique this because no clear definition of “universally preferable behavior” is given in the book, and because none of these statements follow from what was said before.

If I argue against UPB, I have not shown a preference for truth over falsehood, only a preference against UPB (for example, I might still prefer to lie to the Nazis about some Jews I am hiding.) Even if I did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because many other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood. Also, Molyneux seems to be saying that objective moral values exist because we have the opinion that moral values exist, which is not the same as demonstrating that moral values really exist.
Proof 2

1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
2. Man is a living organism.
3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.
4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and
practice of universally preferred behaviour.
5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.6

You may notice this is actually the same as Proof 1, and carries all the same problems. Notice also that “practice of universally preferred behavior” in premise 3 has become “acceptance and practice of universally preferred behavior” in premise 4.
Proof 3

1. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported by empirical observation.
2. If the concept of “universally preferable behaviour” is valid, then mankind should believe in
universally preferable behaviour.
3. All men believe in universally preferable behaviour.
4. Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the validity of universally preferable behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is not valid.7

Premise 2 is question-begging. Molyneux assumes that “mankind should…” as part of his argument that should is a valid concept. Likewise, if I start my argument assuming that Nazism is moral, I can easily “prove” that Nazism is moral.

Premise 3 is clearly false.

Premise 4 is a confused way of saying, “Evidence exists that UPB exists, so it exists.” That statement by itself is fine (except that he has not shown us such evidence), but notice how none of these statements follow from any of the others! It is like reading a book that says:

1. For Tyler Cowen to be right about the economy, he must have evidence.
2. If theism is true, it is immoral to be unaware that gods exist.
3. Every culture has believed in gods.
4. Therefore, all milk is nervous.

After nearly every sentence in this book, I had to stop and ask “Wait, what?”
Proof 4

1. Choices are almost infinite.
2. Most human beings make very similar choices.
3. Therefore not all choices can be equal.
4. Therefore universally preferable choices must be valid.8

Those who have studied logic are already shaking their heads in disbelief. But imagine: there are 120 pages of this!

Premise 1 is clearly false. Premise 3 is ambiguous and does not follow from premises 1 and 2. By “equal,” does Molyneux mean “popular?” Finally, premise 4 doesn’t follow from the other three. Even if all choices were not morally equal (which has not been established by this argument), it wouldn’t mean that some choices are universally preferable.
Proof 5

1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.
2. Man is the most successful organism.
3. Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
4. Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.
5. Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
6. Therefore universally preferable behaviour must be valid.9

Premise 1 is ambiguous, and either false or tautological.

Premise 2 is very unclear: if we’re talking about height, the giraffe is the most successful. If we’re talking about numbers, ants and many species of bacteria are more successful. Etc.

For Premise 3 to follow from the first two premises, we would have to know that UPB is the only thing that contributes to “success,” whatever that means.

In premise 4, “distinctive” is ambiguous.

Premises 5 and 6 don’t follow from the other premises – they are complete non sequiters. And what is Molyneux trying to establish, here? That whatever leads to successful reproduction is moral? Why should he choose that? And if so, does that mean that killing others to become king, maintain a harem, and father hundreds of children is moral?
Conclusion

I get the impression that one day Molyneux was impressed by a book with many sections of numbered statements, the last always beginning with “Therefore…”, then decided to write his own book just like it, without first learning anything about how logic or argument work.

i did some more looking and found a crap load of videos on youtube picking apart his arguments.


this is why i will not give that book a read

sorry to do the whole stick man argument but these arguments are embarrassing to him. also, the only thing he is known for is a radio show and cult-leader status

 

[blazinfasstt]

in your source, when the author is asked for an example of a successful anarchic society---he says you.

we are governed by morals, some more than others. people with strong morals are seen as more capable and respectable humans in our society. so, even unconciously, we admire and seek to be governed.
you would trust your life to a person completely governed by morals. (well most ppl and depending on the morals)

also i searched for some criticisms of his books and found lots.

from one criticism of his book on universally preferable behavior

Proof 1

If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who
speak falsely… Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable behaviour.5

Of course, it is difficult to critique this because no clear definition of “universally preferable behavior” is given in the book, and because none of these statements follow from what was said before.

If I argue against UPB, I have not shown a preference for truth over falsehood, only a preference against UPB (for example, I might still prefer to lie to the Nazis about some Jews I am hiding.) Even if I did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because many other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood. Also, Molyneux seems to be saying that objective moral values exist because we have the opinion that moral values exist, which is not the same as demonstrating that moral values really exist.
Proof 2

1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
2. Man is a living organism.
3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.
4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and
practice of universally preferred behaviour.
5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.6

You may notice this is actually the same as Proof 1, and carries all the same problems. Notice also that “practice of universally preferred behavior” in premise 3 has become “acceptance and practice of universally preferred behavior” in premise 4.
Proof 3

1. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported by empirical observation.
2. If the concept of “universally preferable behaviour” is valid, then mankind should believe in
universally preferable behaviour.
3. All men believe in universally preferable behaviour.
4. Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the validity of universally preferable behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is not valid.7

Premise 2 is question-begging. Molyneux assumes that “mankind should…” as part of his argument that should is a valid concept. Likewise, if I start my argument assuming that Nazism is moral, I can easily “prove” that Nazism is moral.

Premise 3 is clearly false.

Premise 4 is a confused way of saying, “Evidence exists that UPB exists, so it exists.” That statement by itself is fine (except that he has not shown us such evidence), but notice how none of these statements follow from any of the others! It is like reading a book that says:

1. For Tyler Cowen to be right about the economy, he must have evidence.
2. If theism is true, it is immoral to be unaware that gods exist.
3. Every culture has believed in gods.
4. Therefore, all milk is nervous.

After nearly every sentence in this book, I had to stop and ask “Wait, what?”
Proof 4

1. Choices are almost infinite.
2. Most human beings make very similar choices.
3. Therefore not all choices can be equal.
4. Therefore universally preferable choices must be valid.8

Those who have studied logic are already shaking their heads in disbelief. But imagine: there are 120 pages of this!

Premise 1 is clearly false. Premise 3 is ambiguous and does not follow from premises 1 and 2. By “equal,” does Molyneux mean “popular?” Finally, premise 4 doesn’t follow from the other three. Even if all choices were not morally equal (which has not been established by this argument), it wouldn’t mean that some choices are universally preferable.
Proof 5

1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.
2. Man is the most successful organism.
3. Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
4. Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.
5. Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
6. Therefore universally preferable behaviour must be valid.9

Premise 1 is ambiguous, and either false or tautological.

Premise 2 is very unclear: if we’re talking about height, the giraffe is the most successful. If we’re talking about numbers, ants and many species of bacteria are more successful. Etc.

For Premise 3 to follow from the first two premises, we would have to know that UPB is the only thing that contributes to “success,” whatever that means.

In premise 4, “distinctive” is ambiguous.

Premises 5 and 6 don’t follow from the other premises – they are complete non sequiters. And what is Molyneux trying to establish, here? That whatever leads to successful reproduction is moral? Why should he choose that? And if so, does that mean that killing others to become king, maintain a harem, and father hundreds of children is moral?
Conclusion

I get the impression that one day Molyneux was impressed by a book with many sections of numbered statements, the last always beginning with “Therefore…”, then decided to write his own book just like it, without first learning anything about how logic or argument work.

i did some more looking and found a crap load of videos on youtube picking apart his arguments.


this is why i will not give that book a read

sorry to do the whole stick man argument but these arguments are embarrassing to him. also, the only thing he is known for is a radio show and cult-leader status

 

[malakadang]

ok... so you are arguing for police to revise their techniques?

also, having to spend money on a child education will not make parents do it.
look at many poorer countries. they have many children and they only send one to school to help out the rest of the family.
making education and everything cost money will not make people spend money on their childrens educations. look at all the parents who do not even try to fund their childs university education

it is cheaper, in your scenario, to get kids working as soon as they are able, maybe 12 years of age, than to send them to school and educate them.

I'm not arguing the police to revise their techniques at all. I'm just saying that different systems have different ways of implementing original systems.
Law was always around, government just took control of law making institutions.


Thats because the poorer countries have no money due to the government failure.


Your education issue.

If everyone is so concerned that poor children will not be able to be educated, then it will be provided by the people that are concerned about it.

Also, many many people offer scholarships for poor people with potential, which for the most part comes from the childs internal drive.

Ask any parent, they won't say I send my child to school because it's the law.

It's not the parents obligation to fund the childs university degree, and there are many many ways to raise funds for such degrees if government institutions aren't around.


I'm not suggesting that scenario at all.

Besides look at Americas functional literacy or should I say illiteracy... It's a shamble.

 

[blazinfasstt]

I'm not arguing the police to revise their techniques at all. I'm just saying that different systems have different ways of implementing original systems.
Law was always around, government just took control of law making institutions.

if you have an institution that enforces laws, you have a government.

Your education issue.

If everyone is so concerned that poor children will not be able to be educated, then it will be provided by the people that are concerned about it.

the government providing education to everyone reflects this concern. however, we have noticed that not too many rich people are willing to help educate the poor

Also, many many people offer scholarships for poor people with potential, which for the most part comes from the childs internal drive.

not many people, few people
there are far too few scholarships. i know, i have been looking for more for years now.

Ask any parent, they won't say I send my child to school because it's the law.

this argument is used by many parents actually, when they speak bluntly to their kids. this was the reason i had to stay in school until i was in grade 10. (stayed in school, but didnt have to). many many kids just drop out after grade 10 because they are not obligated to go anymore.

It's not the parents obligation to fund the childs university degree, and there are many many ways to raise funds for such degrees if government institutions aren't around.

then how is it the parents obligation to fund the childs preschool education if it was privatized. this is my argument. the education that costs money now is not paid for by parents. what do you think will happen if we make all education for profit?
this is why many many kids exit university with debts that will take 10 years to pay off. in your situation, if a kid wants education from a young age, they should take out a loan that will take 20 years to pay off?

I'm not suggesting that scenario at all.

Besides look at Americas functional literacy or should I say illiteracy... It's a shamble

it is better than a lot of other places.

also
funfact: literacy is strongly related to a nations quality of life and life-span.

 

[malakadang]

if you have an institution that enforces laws, you have a government.

Law has been around a lot longer than government.

the government providing education to everyone reflects this concern. however, we have noticed that not too many rich people are willing to help educate the poor

Because they think the government has it under control when they don't.

not many people, few people
there are far too few scholarships. i know, i have been looking for more for years now.

As the above quote. In Australia there is HECS, the government pays for you, so there less incentives for people to offer scholarships. Plus the fact that 50% of the riches money gets taxed, so essentially the rich are funding education to begin with.

this argument is used by many parents actually, when they speak bluntly to their kids. this was the reason i had to stay in school until i was in grade 10. (stayed in school, but didnt have to). many many kids just drop out after grade 10 because they are not obligated to go anymore.

Theres no incentive for them to go, they can collect unemployment benefit, yay. Thats a key problem with handouts, they take incentive away from people.

then how is it the parents obligation to fund the childs preschool education if it was privatized. this is my argument. the education that costs money now is not paid for by parents. what do you think will happen if we make all education for profit?
this is why many many kids exit university with debts that will take 10 years to pay off. in your situation, if a kid wants education from a young age, they should take out a loan that will take 20 years to pay off?

Private enterprise is not run solely for profit.
Parents will pay to educate their kids. I have not met a single parent that is dis satisfied with giving their kids an education.
10 years to pay off? What do they work as a shoe shiner?
People set themselves average goals. If you study hard, play hard, and work hard you will have a very successful life.

it is better than a lot of other places.

It's still not good.

also
funfact: literacy is strongly related to a nations quality of life and life-span.

Is that because in the correlation between literacy and life spam in countries like Africa is different from those in America or Westernized countries?

 

[blazinfasstt]

sythe- down for maintenance. i hate the server this is on. sometimes it takes like 2 mins just to send a message and a lot of times it tells u to resend the page

 

[blazinfasstt]

Law has been around a lot longer than government.



Because they think the government has it under control when they don't.


As the above quote. In Australia there is HECS, the government pays for you, so there less incentives for people to offer scholarships. Plus the fact that 50% of the riches money gets taxed, so essentially the rich are funding education to begin with.


Theres no incentive for them to go, they can collect unemployment benefit, yay. Thats a key problem with handouts, they take incentive away from people.



Private enterprise is not run solely for profit.
Parents will pay to educate their kids. I have not met a single parent that is dis satisfied with giving their kids an education.
10 years to pay off? What do they work as a shoe shiner?
People set themselves average goals. If you study hard, play hard, and work hard you will have a very successful life.



It's still not good.

Is that because in the correlation between literacy and life spam in countries like Africa is different from those in America or Westernized countries?

formal government has not been around for a while. but look up the definition of to govern. you will see that it applies to many anarchic situations presented.

i do not think that, if they get that 50% back, the rich would say, lets give it to poor kids. they need education.

ask most people who take out student loans. it takes like 10 years to repay.


no. within any given nation, the ones who can read live longer.

a parent will never admit they did not want to send a kid to school but there any many parents who work two jobs just to make ends meet and give their kids a lunch to pack to school.
in a situation where the same parent had to pay to have their child in school, i am sure the child would simply realize it is unrealistic and save the mother a heart attack from needing to work even more hours

If you study hard, play hard, and work hard you will have a very successful life.

this is not true. it would be nice if it were but it is not.
hard work and hard studying does not necessarily equal success. case in point, racism. do i need to site another of the billion examples that refute this statement?

 

[malakadang]

formal government has not been around for a while. but look up the definition of to govern. you will see that it applies to many anarchic situations presented.

We are governed by the laws of physics, that doesn't mean God is the government.
What anarchic situations are you referring to?

i do not think that, if they get that 50% back, the rich would say, lets give it to poor kids. they need education.

The billions and possibly trillions? of dollars donated to charity disagree with you.

ask most people who take out student loans. it takes like 10 years to repay.

They must shine shoes for a living then after they finish Uni.
In Australia how HECS works is that you pay a certain percentage of your wage until you pay off your debt. If you don't earn anything, then you need not pay it off.

a parent will never admit they did not want to send a kid to school but there any many parents who work two jobs just to make ends meet and give their kids a lunch to pack to school.
in a situation where the same parent had to pay to have their child in school, i am sure the child would simply realize it is unrealistic and save the mother a heart attack from needing to work even more hours

Public school costs virtually nothing for parents, what are you talking about?
Feeding your kids at school costs AT THE VERY VERY VERY MAXIMUM $10 a day for 5 days a week.

If you study hard, play hard, and work hard you will have a very successful life.

this is not true. it would be nice if it were but it is not.
hard work and hard studying does not necessarily equal success. case in point, racism. do i need to site another of the billion examples that refute this statement?

Works for me and all of the people I know.
Me and my friends balance studying and play, and we are all on route to a perfect ATAR score. The equivalent of a 4.0 GPA score. This sets you up for the best opportunity for success.
Look at all the professional sports players, they trained their arse off and they're incredibly successful.
It may not guarantee success, as they're are a multitude of factors that can stack up as contributory factors, however nonetheless this holds true over 99% of the time.

 

[tiger9110]

Go watch the documentary "Life and Debt if you want to know what Free Trade is doing to developing countries.

Free trade works for the benefit of the developed countries, developing countries that get involved are only screwed over.

EDIT: Mixed up documentary names

 

[malakadang]

Go watch the documentary "Black Coffee" if you want to know what Free Trade is doing to developing countries.

Free trade works for the benefit of the developed countries, developing countries that get involved are only screwed over.

'developed countries' =/= 'developing countries'.

They're 2 completely different things. Also a controlled market doesn't work in these developing countries, as they are still developing, they don't really have a market.

Putting this to a very easy perspective, sythe.org runs in a free trade like market. There are NO restrictions for anyone to come and set up a gold business, or a service business. Imagine if there were restrictions, like you'd have to pay 50% of your profits, you'd have to report everything to sythe.

Sounds preposterous doesn't it? Thats our current market.

 

[tiger9110]

'developed countries' =/= 'developing countries'.

They're 2 completely different things. Also a controlled market doesn't work in these developing countries, as they are still developing, they don't really have a market.

This is obvious and that doesn't stop free trade from happening, you will know what I am talking about if you watch the documentary.

Countries like Jamaica, once they had gotten their freedom from colonial rule, were soon swamped with an enormous debt which they had no means to pay back. They went to the IMF (International Monetary Fund) for a loan. Which they granted, at a short term period with an incredibly high interest rate.

They also said that to get this grant, Jamaica must remove all trade barriers and have free trade in the area. After this happened, large multinational corporations came into the country and were offering their goods and services cheaper than the local goods/services. Things like vegetables and other grown produce were the exact same other than the packaging which distinguished the MNC's produce from the locally grown ones.

There is obviously something terribly wrong with this situation. Free trade in this area has also killed the dairy industry, once that was booming to being out sold by the cheaper milk powder MNC's bring in. Where does this excess milk go when it isn't sold? They drain the milk tanks and let it huge amounts of milk just go to waste.

Putting this to a very easy perspective, sythe.org runs in a free trade like market. There are NO restrictions for anyone to come and set up a gold business, or a service business. Imagine if there were restrictions, like you'd have to pay 50% of your profits, you'd have to report everything to sythe.

Sounds preposterous doesn't it? Thats our current market.

This is the internet, not a country or territory, of which the concept of free trade is based on. Free trade is the removal of tariffs and trade barriers that block certain countries from selling their imports to other countries without some kind of penalty (usually in the form of tax) to the home country.

Not reporting your earnings is simply just evading taxes. Which is different from Free Trade. Again, this is the internet so the concept of Free Trade is useless when you use the internet as an example of this. I took an undergrad in Social Anthropology and it really opened my eyes to what's really going on in our world.

 

[SuF]

'developed countries' =/= 'developing countries'.

They're 2 completely different things. Also a controlled market doesn't work in these developing countries, as they are still developing, they don't really have a market.

Putting this to a very easy perspective, sythe.org runs in a free trade like market. There are NO restrictions for anyone to come and set up a gold business, or a service business. Imagine if there were restrictions, like you'd have to pay 50% of your profits, you'd have to report everything to sythe.

Sounds preposterous doesn't it? Thats our current market.

Sythe is an extremely simplified market with limited potential to abuse the system. In a large scale, entirely free market, money makes more money. With enough cash, a company can destroy all competition which stifles innovation and allows them to set prices however they want.

 

[tiger9110]

free trade pwns on runescape LOOL

That is certainly not the topic is about. Free trade between countries, not over a game.

 

[malakadang]

This is obvious and that doesn't stop free trade from happening, you will know what I am talking about if you watch the documentary.

What countries are you talking about? I'll try and watch the documentary when I have time.

Countries like Jamaica, once they had gotten their freedom from colonial rule, were soon swamped with an enormous debt which they had no means to pay back. They went to the IMF (International Monetary Fund) for a loan. Which they granted, at a short term period with an incredibly high interest rate.

Jamaica wasn't fully free trade. Even still the first few years of their implementation, inflation reduced by over 50%.

They also said that to get this grant, Jamaica must remove all trade barriers and have free trade in the area. After this happened, large multinational corporations came into the country and were offering their goods and services cheaper than the local goods/services. Things like vegetables and other grown produce were the exact same other than the packaging which distinguished the MNC's produce from the locally grown ones.

Thats the problem, it's like saying a countries defense is poor because aliens can invade and destroy us.

There is obviously something terribly wrong with this situation. Free trade in this area has also killed the dairy industry, once that was booming to being out sold by the cheaper milk powder MNC's bring in. Where does this excess milk go when it isn't sold? They drain the milk tanks and let it huge amounts of milk just go to waste.

Same as above point, and also these countries were able to amass such an extraordinary amount of money BECAUSE of their current market economy. Also in a free trade economy prices are determined for the most part by supply and demand, so they can just simply drop the prices.

This is the internet, not a country or territory, of which the concept of free trade is based on. Free trade is the removal of tariffs and trade barriers that block certain countries from selling their imports to other countries without some kind of penalty (usually in the form of tax) to the home country.

Yes, but imagine if all those were implemented on Sythe.

Copy pasted from wiki some features of free trade:

"Trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers)
Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers
The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an advantage over others
Free access to markets
Free access to market information
Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power
The free movement of labor between and within countries
The free movement of capital between and within countries"

Not reporting your earnings is simply just evading taxes. Which is different from Free Trade. Again, this is the internet so the concept of Free Trade is useless when you use the internet as an example of this. I took an undergrad in Social Anthropology and it really opened my eyes to what's really going on in our world.

What does the government do with our taxes? Waste it.
Tax is just legalized theft, every person is against it, every person tries to exercise loopholes. It is simply a form of legalized coercive theft.

Tell me this, what human likes to be coerced? What human likes to be controlled? A brainwashed one?

Sythe is an extremely simplified market with limited potential to abuse the system. In a large scale, entirely free market, money makes more money. With enough cash, a company can destroy all competition which stifles innovation and allows them to set prices however they want.

Would never happen.

What the government does now is make money... It just prints billions yearly, reducing the commodity exchange value of money, and thus produces inflation.

In an entirely free market lets say a company has 5 billion, and they go to set up shop in order to become a monopoly.

There are 5 other shops. They would have to undercut those shops to a point where they would be losing money, or they would have to buy out those shops till they incur a MASSIVE DEBT.

In a Free Market the innovative humans are able to set up their businesses as they will without fear of giving 50% of it away. Thus if ever their is a monopoly, these people will simply set up shop, undercut the large prices and it'll be perfect.

Free Markets allow for more competition. Their are monopolies left right and centre, PayPal is a prime example for Sythes condition.



Also, your arguing that hey Free Trade is bad/won't work because of ... Well what part of a capitalist market works? The inflation? The unemployment? The defect?

 

[SuF]

Would never happen.

What the government does now is make money... It just prints billions yearly, reducing the commodity exchange value of money, and thus produces inflation.

In an entirely free market lets say a company has 5 billion, and they go to set up shop in order to become a monopoly.

There are 5 other shops. They would have to undercut those shops to a point where they would be losing money, or they would have to buy out those shops till they incur a MASSIVE DEBT.

Monopolies are not set up by people with tons of money. They require not only a history and implantation within the field of business that they are in, but also cash in order to continue to promote their, already highly successful, product in the marketplace. Advertising is one of the key aspects of any business as in order to attract customers, you must be known to them. Large companies already are known to people but also have the resources to be able to continue to press this brand recognition on people. The method of setting up monopolies that is mainly taught in schools is the "destroy them with lower prices" model. This is a major factor but it is much more complex than the simple version you have outlined. The larger a company gets, the more influence it has in its field of business. This comes from the reduction of competitors from the success of their own business. They also begin to pay more for their employees, which are top of the grade, which others can not do due to the lack of funds. Thus, becoming better or best at making or doing something allows you do become even better and so on. People would rather work at a great company than a not so great company. This influence and market share allows them to control costs in a way others can not do. If you enter into contracts with others to buy all of their product, at a low price in return for guaranteed sales, you have already made it so that your better product costs less than the worse competitors product. They will make less money than they could otherwise by leaving their price low (people pay much more for what they think are quality services even if they are overpriced).

In a Free Market the innovative humans are able to set up their businesses as they will without fear of giving 50% of it away. Thus if ever their is a monopoly, these people will simply set up shop, undercut the large prices and it'll be perfect.

If you talk about something like Google, it is not as simple as this at all. The other factors I have explained come into play as well.

Free Markets allow for more competition. Their are monopolies left right and centre, PayPal is a prime example for Sythes condition.

Also, your arguing that hey Free Trade is bad/won't work because of ... Well what part of a capitalist market works? The inflation? The unemployment? The defect?

I like regulated Capitalism even though it is flawed as pure capitalism is also flawed. I would also like to ask whether or not patents, workers rights, etc, are going to be apart of this debate or whether or not you think a free market can exist with these safeguards in place.