[Oroboros]

I'm about two-thirds of the way through What is Free Trade: An Adaptation of Frederic Bastiat's "Sophismes Éconimiques" Designed for the American Reader by Frédéric Bastiat, adapted by Emile Walker. So, there may something in the last third that addresses this question; but I wanted to commence discussion anyhow, as the topic is certainly broad enough to bear it.

Bastiat discusses how free trade is beneficial to nations as it is beneficial to persons; and sums it up aptly with this statement:

"It is better to buy from others anything which would cost more to make ourselves."

Certainly that is a valid claim, especially from a strictly economic standpoint. Bastiat uses "Nature" as his differential agent; ie, it's cheaper to buy oranges from naturally sunny climates than it is to greenhouse them in unfriendly ones:

"...The law can take nothing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, nor from the severity of the frosts in New York. Oranges continuing to mature themselves naturally on the banks of the Tagus, and artificially upon those of the Hudson, must continue to require for their production much more labor on the latter than the former."

He uses that type of example frequently in his arguments. He also discusses availability of machines or labor in one region that are less dearly available in others, or are indeed available at all, and therefore it behooves the former region to buy from the latter. He has not yet, in my reading, discussed the reasons for that glut of labor, other than to say that Nature may have favored the latter region in some way.

What about slave labor, or labor gained in a way that equates to the same thing? Both the traditional American Right and Left are opposed to trade with China, but for often differing reasons.

The right doesn't want to trade with them because they are seen as a Communist threat, and the idea is that trade with them will benefit them – whether or not it is more beneficial to the US or not may not matter, as the principal of aiding the Commies in any way is determined to be wrong by principle.

The left doesn't want to trade with them due to perceived human-rights and environmental abuses, both in general, and in the means of production itself. The fact that China's laws seem to allow for hostile work conditions, unbridled pollution, and severe impairments of basic freedoms – such as speech and religion – tend to raise the hackles of civil libertarians of all stripes.

What role does entirely unrestricted free trade play under those circumstances? And, further, what role does it play for nations who are in fact worse than China regarding the condition of their laborers?

1) What are some libertarian resources that address this topic?
2) What are your solutions or supposed outcomes for true free trade under the circumstances mentioned?
3) What is the current state of real free trade? Have Bastiat's ideals been fulfilled, undermined, abandoned, imperfectly executed, or something else?

This post has been edited by Oroboros: 08 February 2010 - 03:51 PM

[Gen. Jack T. Ripper]

As far as the raw economics of slavery goes: even from the perspective of a slave, unrestricted free trade is probably better than the alternative. He's a capital good to his owner; he is ...maintained... out of the owner's gross proceeds, according to his owner's estimation of his contribution to future profits. Eliminate his usefulness, and he is likely to be eliminated, himself: sold to other owners, or turned loose - and in the sort of societies that use such labor, this almost invariably means being turned loose with no capital, no means for subsistence, little (if any) employability, and that for even less than he got as a slave. The post-Reconstruction South is a fine example of all of that.

[freeBatjko]

i don't know anything about bastiat, but i will be damned if his biggest fan JTR is not writing on a response as we speak, which i am looking forward to reading.

however, i only want to comment on point 2).
"true free trade" cannot be simpler. it does not need individual solutions, customized for specific geographic regions or political circumstances.
true free trade is exactly that. free. restrained by nothing but voluntary agreements and contracts.

since i know you know that, i assume your question refers to a somewhat leveled implementation. or the attempt thereof, instead of a full implementation of free trade, i.e. removal of any regulatory constraints on personal or corporate trade.
morally, there is no reason for this sort of reformist compromise.
practically? to avoid some harsh counter-reactions maybe, to get people used to the idea first etc pp.?
yea well, there may be a consideration, but then... the principle is easy enough, it might just be more effective to rip the band aid off in one quick go.
and to be honest, i'm not so sure it would even hurt.

Gen. Jack T. Ripper, on 09 February 2010 - 11:37 AM, said:

As far as the raw economics of slavery goes: even from the perspective of a slave, unrestricted free trade is probably better than the alternative. He's a capital good to his owner; he is ...maintained... out of the owner's gross proceeds, according to his owner's estimation of his contribution to future profits. Eliminate his usefulness, and he is likely to be eliminated, himself: sold to other owners, or turned loose - and in the sort of societies that use such labor, this almost invariably means being turned loose with no capital, no means for subsistence, little (if any) employability, and that for even less than he got as a slave. The post-Reconstruction South is a fine example of all of that.

ha. called it.

This post has been edited by freeBatjko: 08 February 2010 - 05:42 PM

[Gen. Jack T. Ripper]

I don't think there's a practical solution to slavery that doesn't involve stripping slaveowners of their properties and handing it over to their slaves. But insofar as the institution exists and isn't going anywhere, cutting off trade doesn't materially help slaves. Whether it can lend any moral help, I wot not.

[freeBatjko]

Quote

the thing with helping slaves is... it's so easy, they only require one thing.
And yet, it's practical because it helps owners learn how to buy wool in shops from now on, which stimulates retail.
It's morally good because you are less likely to kill your own servants in self-defense when they rebell against their shackles.
And finally it's utterly fun because playing poker with someone who's legally your property, thus plays against you with your own money, wouldn't be.

[Oroboros]

Quick clarification:

When I say "True Free Trade" I mean completely unrestricted, ancap freedom of trade.

When I say "Real Free Trade" I mean what we have now, that is NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT, etc. – I should say "What's Known Today as 'Free Trade'"

[Oroboros]

I also want to clarify that I'm in personal favor of unrestricted free trade, and I believe it will lead – if anything will – to gradual improvement in the lives of the both the consciously and unconsciously enslaved.

What I'm looking for is cogent argument against the classic Right and Left arguments against such free trade. Not just, "it will help them because it probably will". Certainly I'm not the first to bring up this question (and if I am, woohoo for me!), so I imagine there are many good discussions on the subject that I might be able to take into consideration.

I'd like to know if anyone has considered the mechanism by which free trade will, all else being equal, help improve the conditions of those trapped in forced labor. Also, in the reverse, whether or not specifically restricted trade helps or harms those same groups.

It's easy enough to argue the basics of free trade as benefitting the nation's occupants at large (counter to protectionism), that's what Bastiat's entire book deals with. But today's American seemingly cares for tangental effects; ie, the Fair Trade, Green, and Animal Rights movements. Without discussing the merits of those aims in general, I think it's important to be able to demonstrate how true free trade is beneficial economically, socially, and environmentally. If it has one out of three, and the alternative has two out of three, then where does the determination lie that free trade is truly the best option?

[Torontosteve]

Oroboros: Great posts today by the way.
I'm inclined to believe that one of Bastiat's many contributions to economic thought, and one of the best reasons for supporting free trade with less friendly nations, or nations with policies of which one doesn't approve of, was the idea that when goods don't cross borders, armies will. It's possible that for the Chinese people, in a nation quite willing to treat it's own as tools, that the absence of war greatly enhances their chances of not also becoming used as pawns.

As far as will free trade help improve conditions, JTR's comments, brilliant as always, had me wondering. Is a nation with a lot of people who may end up not quite so willing to work for next to nothing, the long term asset the Chinese government assumes they are?

[freeBatjko]

Torontosteve, on 09 February 2010 - 05:53 PM, said:

Is a nation with a lot of people who may end up not quite so willing to work for next to nothing, the long term asset the Chinese government assumes they are?

Do you assume chinese labor will remain as cheap as it is now?
With improving living standards and the extension of white collar work labor becomes more expensive. I can't see at this point how the chinese economy would not develop in similar ways as western economies did, only still at an accelerated pace.
What i am wondering about in regard to China is whether its autocratic remains will indeed remain intact during that development and whether that is even possible.
I think not even the chinese government could stop the country anymore. but we shall see, shan't we.

[zen]

No. There is a rising middle class in China. In the 50s it was cheap to make stuff in Japan. That changed. Now it's cheap to make stuff in China. That will change within 10 - 15 years.

Factories are already moving to India. India will be the new China. When that becomes too expensive factories will move to Korea or Vietnam or someplace else entirely.

As long as human labor remains cheap and plentiful there will be manufacturing jobs. America lost its manufacturing base because the government taxed and regulated it out of existence. The best steel in the world used to be made in America. Unions and regulations made it too costly to do business here. So now most steel is made in China.

This is what happens when pols meddle in areas they have no right to meddle in.

[Oroboros]

I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that economic availability is a stronger force for positive change than is war. Russia's Communist government failed in large part due to its people's desire for Westernization; ie, they wanted more cool toys.

I don't think it's far-fetched to say that the same thing is happening in China. Surely the folks over there making our cool toys have to wonder why they can't play with them too.

[Torontosteve]

FB: No, what I meant is fairly along the lines of what Oroboros, and you, mentioned. My point was directed at the idea; that between the Remnimbi peg, and the controlled labour cost restrictions over there, the Chinese government is gambling with their economy. That the labour market will remain cost effective, and citizens won't question their status as willing to work for nothing. Considering China's investments in recent infrastructure, their economy hinges on this, or they could go the way of Dubai.

[freeBatjko]

i have no doubt that those labour cost restrictions will fall away eventually. Because otherwise they will start to see the feared brain drain, as well as muscle drain really.
if my country artificially keeps my salary down while i can work the same job somewhere else for twice as much, i leave. and chinese workers have proven that they are willing to sacrifice a lot for a good job,
unlike many westerners.

This post has been edited by freeBatjko: 10 February 2010 - 05:41 AM

[Bezukhov]

Quote

3) What is the current state of real free trade? Have Bastiat's ideals been fulfilled, undermined, abandoned, imperfectly executed, or something else?

What I can't figure out is why a product manufactured thousands of miles away should be cheaper than the same product manufactured around the block? Not without some outside force rigging the game.

[freeBatjko]

we're always being told that simple logic like this is just too simple to understand the intricacies of complex economic processes.
but if they contradict basic logic, it's not dumb to assume that illogical interference must be the cause.

[zen]

Bezukhov, on 10 February 2010 - 06:45 AM, said:

What I can't figure out is why a product manufactured thousands of miles away should be cheaper than the same product manufactured around the block? Not without some outside force rigging the game.

My #1 selling product costs me about $3.90 delivered into my Texas warehouse from Taiwan. (Shipping included.) This same exact product, produced IN TEXAS costs me about $12.50.

The cost difference can be found in taxes on the materials, taxes on the shipping, taxes on labor, payroll taxes, SS taxes, OSHA taxes, gas taxes.... suffice it to say that the list is long and depressing. Any single tax might not affect profitability too much.... but what we got is a death by a thousand cuts....