Isn't free trade just trickle down economics?

[VivaRevolution]

Simple idea here. The crux of the argument for free trade deals, seems to be that it increases GDP. Whenever I debate people on the merits of free trade, this is the argument, along with cheaper goods that is used to defend it.

So I have a simple question here, arguing an increase in GDP is good for all of us, isn't that just re-branded, trickle down economics?

 

[bmasters1993]

I really want to answer but I don't understand the question. Are you asking if free trade favours the wealthier over the less wealthy? Or are you asking if an increase in GDP PPP favours the wealthier over the less wealthy?

 

[MadSquabbles500]

If the only people doing the free trade already have most of the money, and assets, then anything that happens is trickle down. Generally speaking of course.

 

[Rod1]

Trickle down economics concerns public spending and taxations, free trade is independent of such measures.

 

[Stump]

Good question.

I'm as ignorant as it gets avout this shit, but I'd say yes.

Protectionist trading policies necessarily help smaller enterprises at the expense of larger conglomerates, I'd think.

Your average ma and PA corner store doesn't need looser trade restrictions to grow and maintain their business. To some degree, cheaper and easier Imports would help anyone in the business of selling things, but this tendency seems to exponentially rise with bigger actors, I'd think.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

GDP can grow without me benefiting in any way I deem significantly desirable. So there's that.

 

[Stump]

Trickle down economics concerns public spending and taxations, free trade is independent of such measures.

Private spending, isn't it?

As in, the wealthy spend their private money and the money they spend trickles down to the plebs.

Taxation and public spending doesn't have anything to do with Trickle down economics as o.inderwtand it, save for the idea that fewer taxes increases private money to be spent, which therefore reduces the need for public spending.

So, obviously, the argument being made in this thread is that this is the same theory being defended by proponents of free trade: that fewer trade restrictions equals more money for businesses, who in turn spend that money in their economies and some of it trickles down.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I really want to answer but I don't understand the question. Are you asking if free trade favours the wealthier over the less wealthy? Or are you asking if an increase in GDP PPP favours the wealthier over the less wealthy?

I realized after I wrote this, that I wasn't very clear in my idea here. Let me attempt to clarify......

The idea behind trickle down economics is that if you put more money in the hands of the job creators, that they will create more jobs, and the wealth will trickle down.

The parallel I am attempting to hi-light with free trade is that increasing your GDP through corporations(as they tend to be the ones who trade overseas), that this is the same argument of putting money in the hands of the rich and powerful, and somehow expecting it to trickle down.

Basically tax breaks for the rich, and increasing GDP, are in essence both arguing enriching the already rich, and expecting that money to somehow trickle down to the rest of the population.

 

[bmasters1993]

I realized after I wrote this, that I wasn't very clear in my idea here. Let me attempt to clarify......

The idea behind trickle down economics is that if you put more money in the hands of the job creators, that they will create more jobs, and the wealth will trickle down.

The parallel I am attempting to hi-light with free trade is that increasing your GDP through corporations(as they tend to be the ones who trade overseas), that this is the same argument of putting money in the hands of the rich and powerful, and somehow expecting it to trickle down.

Basically tax breaks for the rich, and increasing GDP, are in essence both arguing enriching the already rich, and expecting that money to somehow trickle down to the rest of the population.

In saying "Putting money in the hands of corportations" and "Enriching the already rich" it sounds as though your beef is with capitalism in general, not free trade.

 

[Stump]

In saying "Putting money in the hands of corportations" and "Enriching the already rich" it sounds as though your beef is with capitalism in general, not free trade.

Is "capitalism in general" unfettered global corporatism?

Honest question, not being snarky. I wouldn't think so, but I ask this openly

 

[VivaRevolution]

In saying "Putting money in the hands of corportations" and "Enriching the already rich" it sounds as though your beef is with capitalism in general, not free trade.

I have no beef with capitalism. I do think it is inherently flawed as structured today, and that worker co-ops would solve this flaw, but that is outside the point I am trying to make here.

I support trade, just not corporate protectionism masquerading as free trade.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

not, b/c if GDP adn other measures are consistently increasing, then presumably the unemployment is staying low, wages are rising (ableit slower than other rates), etc....

it's a hard argument though. by imposing less/no tariffs, you are presumably increasing trade amongst friendly nations, however it diminishes the competitive advantages we already give certain countries either developing or recovering from some event (read: Japan and Germany after WWII). in a situation like that, economies of scale typically wins, so the little guy will still get dominated. or exploited for labor and other things like we do now, which supposedly create markets for products but unless you're making shittier stuff, they can't buy it anyway...

 

[bmasters1993]

Is "capitalism in general" unfettered global corporatism?

Honest question, not being snarky. I wouldn't think so, but I ask this openly

Not completely unfettered in terms of labour workers wages.

My perception was the the TS beefing with the private aspect of private enterprise, which to me is central to capitalism.

I have no beef with capitalism. I do think it is inherently flawed as structured today, and that worker co-ops would solve this flaw, but that is outside the point I am trying to make here.

Worker co-ops are an interesting idea, haven't thought enough about the pros and cons tbh.

I support trade, just not corporate protectionism masquerading as free trade.

A tariff drives up prices in the destination, what then happens is either 1. the more expensive imported product doesn't sell next to the cheaper local product, so the corporation bugs out, or 2. the more expensive product does sell and the corporations effectively pass on the tariff expenses to consumers.

What i'm saying is that tariffs don't take any profits out of the hands of corporations.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Not completely unfettered in terms of labour workers wages.

My perception was the the TS beefing with the private aspect of private enterprise, which to me is central to capitalism.


Worker co-ops are an interesting idea, haven't thought enough about the pros and cons tbh.


A tariff drives up prices in the destination, what then happens is either 1. the more expensive imported product doesn't sell next to the cheaper local product, so the corporation bugs out, or 2. the more expensive product does sell and the corporations effectively pass on the tariff expenses to consumers.

What i'm saying is that tariffs don't take any profits out of the hands of corporations.

There are many ways to skin a cat. Trade tariffs are just one. We could renegotiate our trade deals to include gradual labor and environmental standards, and penalty for not meeting those bench marks. We could do it as a tax for those who don't meet those standards. We could employ a number of techniques to drive the demand and stifle the supply of labor including through immigration reform, and infrastructure spending.

I am more concerned with the problem, and it being solved, then I am any ideology that gets us there.

 

[Last Samurai]

free trade means no trade barriers between countries

trickle down economics has to do with domestic economic policy

so not really the same

 

[Rod1]

Private spending, isn't it?

As in, the wealthy spend their private money and the money they spend trickles down to the plebs.

Taxation and public spending doesn't have anything to do with Trickle down economics as o.inderwtand it, save for the idea that fewer taxes increases private money to be spent, which therefore reduces the need for public spending.

So, obviously, the argument being made in this thread is that this is the same theory being defended by proponents of free trade: that fewer trade restrictions equals more money for businesses, who in turn spend that money in their economies and some of it trickles down.

Of course what i meant is that trickle down refers to low taxation and low public spending, which of course is independent on how the market behaves.

tariffs is tampering with the market, proper taxation is not, if you slap tariffs but you dont do something about tax loopholes you will end up in the same place as before.

 

[Prutfis]

Trickle down was the biggest sham in history and to this day still has dumb americans voting against their own best interests because they can be easily distracted by guns and abortions.

 

[Thurisaz]

Free trade is more than borderline insane. It's batshit crazy.

 

[Prutfis]

Free trade is more than borderline insane. It's batshit crazy.

lol.. Free trade is good. Free capitalism is not.

 

[Thurisaz]

lol.. Free trade is good.

It's ridiculously stupid and the arguments for it laughable. I can demonstrate if you want.