Talk:Free trade

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

China's abundant supply of cheap labor

"and China has abundant cheap labor..." which translates in practice to "China has less effective labor protections so it's much more cost-efficient to exploit the Chinese labor market than the labor markets of the West." You make free trade sound like this idyllic thing which can only do good, when in reality it is very much a mixed-bag. Carthage (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You know that this was a positive, not a normative statement, right? And no, it's not a mixed-bag. Especially not for Chinese people (but also for Americans). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(EC) How is it a stupid statement? Why else would corporations outsource labor to China? You say it yourself: "China has abundant cheap labor." Tell me, what do you envision as "cheap labor"? Carthage (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(EC) China has abundant cheap labor because there are 1.4 billion of people there and because they are less productive than Americans for many reasons. TThey are fixing this problem with trade. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Now, do the lack of regulations and social security in China help? Yes, it does. But again, they are now escaping from these problems because of trade. You can compare how labor in China became far less cheap in the last 3 decades. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Has trade helped alleviate the conditions of Chinese workplaces? Chinese regulators had to crackdown on Dickensian work-place conditions, pressured by labor, not by pressure from global trade. These Dickensian conditions by the way are also found among white-collar workers. Working twelve hours from 9 am to 9 pm for six days a week. Carthage (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Since China opened its economy, it has lifted over 800 millions from extreme poverty.[1] So, yes, it did improve the lives of Chinese people. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not a rebuttal to the fact that it was labor pressure that led to the crackdown on the 969 work culture, not pressure from international traders. Carthage (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(EC) You can't expect a country to have the workers' rights as people in Europe when its economy is still extremely inefficient, this is one of the reasons why countries in Latin America don't grow. But yeah, the conditions did improve. Until not so long ago, people in China were starving. Now they are an upper-middle income country. Don't you think this is remarkable? Now, if you want my opinion, I would sacrifice some efficiency for more rights and social security if I were the Chinese government. But that doesn't change the fact that the country grew because of trade, and its comparative advantages (now this is changing, because the country is getting richer) lied on its workforce.GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, it is not a "fact" at all. The crackdown was possible because the country got richer. No one said anything about international traders, the point is, the Chinese people got richer because of trade. You said that "free trade is a mixed bag". You still haven't provided evidence for that and is trying to move the goalpost again. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Infant industries

Finally, if an industry young and unable to compete profitably against foreign rivals, but there is reason to believe that the industry can be profitable in the long run, firm owners should be willing to incur temporary losses to obtain the eventual profits, and protection is not necessary for an infant industry to grow.

What in question would prevent multinationals or foreign investors from swooping in and buying the indigenous firms in question? This would seem to encourage neocolonialism then. Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding the concept. Carthage (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, it's a way that companies raise money. TSMC and Samsumg, two of greatest recent cases of success of this policy, are now mostly owned by foreign investors, for instance (though I don't know when this became the case, more on this soon). If you are not convinced, I can think of two possibilities to tackle this problem: 1 State-owned enterprises. Not a big fan of this one (see the CEITEC case, for instance). Another one is government intervention. I think the Korean government restricted the sales of the chaebols in the past, for instance. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Child labor

Child labor is reduced in the US, sure, but there remains one key area where it is common: the agricultural sector. I find the notion that "wealth" and not "regulation" alone defeated child labor to be questionable, especially in light of the fact that regulations actually exclude agriculture from child labor laws. Carthage (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sociologist perspective

What do sociologists think of free trade? This book review about a work reviewing free trade from a sociologist's perspective suggests a more nuanced take than what is being portrayed here. Perhaps we can incorporate this into the criticism section? Carthage (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest at editing this article further, I'll only clean it up and add another section against free trade. Moreover, according to your link, the main criticism of the book is on the environmental impact of trade, something that the article already covers. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'll also add another criticism of free trade, about "retaliation", that the book seems to agree. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Trade is not the cause of child labor, poverty is"

You act as if corporations are not all too willing to exploit child labor. There is a valid case to be made about how corporations exploit child labor, and you dismiss it here. Trade may not be the cause of child labor, but it certainly exploits it, which is the criticism being made. Carthage (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)