# Free Trade Liars **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 17, 2016, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241 "2016-03-17T09:56:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/61 "2016-03-18T16:20:56Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Oh, I am so done dealing with this lying bullshit. **I have not claimed that free-trade is a cause of slavery** , so why the hell should I show a causal link? Keep lying, asshole. > > But the idea that regulations or **financial penalties will have a tendency to discentivize a specific behavior** is old-hat economics. The idea that incentives affect behavior is one of the foundational assumptions of capitalist economic theory. Bolding and underlining mine This is the problem with learning English-as-a-second-language in an impoverished third-world nation, these statements may seem logical in your baboon-dialect-as-mother-language, but they completely fail in English. These two statements are mutually exclusive, but since you’ve claimed both then anything anyone says will be a strawman argument. I can only guess that some of the fleas you’ve picked off your fellow baboons and eaten have disagreed with your delicate stomach and now you have a bellyache. They’ve reached your asshole and your simplistic mind can think of nothing else. Flip-flopping is a lie in of itself… and it’s always the strawman who cries “You’re a strawman” first. Perhaps you and the other baboons can figure out how to explain why the complete ban on importing slaves into the United States in 1808 didn’t actually end slavery in the United States? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/62 "2016-03-18T16:21:28Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Or perhaps you could explain what _you_ mean by ‘causal’. Nope, since I’m not the one throwing out the term. But since you’ve explained how you are using it, I’ll deal with that. > [@](#): > > Let’s explore for a moment what it would mean for there to be no causal link whatosever between trade and slavery. This would imply that, no matter how you tinkered with the parameters of trade, you could have no impact whatseover on slavery. Whatever changes Nation A made to their practice of free trade with Nation B, no chain of causes and effects would reach Nation B’s use of slave labor. Ok, I’ll agree with that. > [@](#): > > We could take another example. You wrote about incentives; when I was in grad school (for economics, no less!), I did research on how incentives can impact health behaviors (specifically smoking). If we want to know how taxes on cigarettes affect smoking behavior, there has to be a causal link between the two. Taxes -\> higher prices -\> less smoking, for example. That doesn’t mean taxes were the sole, direct cause of smoking, which I suspect is how you’re idiosyncratically using ‘causal’ here. No, since it’s not my term and I didn’t bring it up. > [@](#): > > So if you say “changes to free trade can impact slavery”, and someone asks you for the causal link you posit between free trade and slavery, they’re not ‘lying’ or strawmanning you or whatever else is going on in your crazy head. And now here’s where I tell you to fuck off. Because, as I have already explained, if I fine people who are using slave labor, they have less incentive to use slave labor. This is so basic a concept, that I can’t believe I actually have to keep explaining it. > [@](#): > > I’m ignoring this because it has no bearing on my participation in this conversation. Of course. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/63 "2016-03-18T16:29:59Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Bolding and underlining mine > > This is the problem with learning English-as-a-second-language in an impoverished third-world nation, these statements may seem logical in your baboon-dialect-as-mother-language, but they completely fail in English. Baboon? Third world? Are you serious? What exactly are you trying to do by putting these terms together? > [@](#): > > These two statements are mutually exclusive, but since you’ve claimed both then anything anyone says will be a strawman argument. I can only guess that some of the fleas you’ve picked off your fellow baboons and eaten have disagreed with your delicate stomach and now you have a bellyache. They’ve reached your asshole and your simplistic mind can think of nothing else. Fuck you. You’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the topic. > [@](#): > > Flip-flopping is a lie in of itself… and it’s always the strawman who cries “You’re a strawman” first. Perhaps you and the other baboons can figure out how to explain why the complete ban on importing slaves into the United States in 1808 didn’t actually end slavery in the United States? I didn’t flip-flop you moron. But since you are such an idiot, since slavery was legal in the US after 1808, there were positive incentives to continue slavery in many states after 1808. If the government had started banning slavery within the US or fining slavery in the US after 1808 (that wouldn’t have been allowed on a Federal level, though), then that would have created negative incentives against slavery, which would have made the practice die out. And when the government did finally put down the big negative incentive (by changing the Constitution and making it illegal) it did die out. Since the US doesn’t have the ability to change the Constitution of Thailand and Burma, the only mechanism it has to create negative incentives against slavery is to sanction goods produced by slavery. You’re a fucking dumb fuck. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/64 "2016-03-18T16:40:18Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I don’t really give a crap what you find “easier” to believe. We’re talking about economics here, so if you have evidence that slaves are better off under a slavery system than a non-slavery system, produce a study. And when we’re talking about slavery, I don’t really give a crap if your own pocketbook might be worse off in a non-slavery system. What does this question have to do with free trade? We _all_ agree with you that slavery is bad and that people are better off not being slaves. The point is _how does protectionism help_? You still haven’t explained that part. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/65 "2016-03-18T16:54:11Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > What does this question have to do with free trade? We _all_ agree with you that slavery is bad and that people are better off not being slaves. The point is _how does protectionism help_? You still haven’t explained that part. I can’t even with this. You’re a fucking idiot, but let me walk you through this argument that I’ve made over and over (did you even read the thread?): 1. The US can ban or fine (by slapping a tariff on them) goods that are produced by slave labor. 2. This creates a negative incentive for an industry to keep using slave labor. 3. In capitalist economic theory, when you create a negative incentive for something, you are supposed to get less of it. 4. So, if the US puts a tariff or ban on goods produced using slave labor, we’re supposed to get less goods produced using slave labor. 5. And since banning or putting a tariff on a good is a trade issue, then it is relevant to free trade issues. Now, stop being a dumbfuck and read the threads before you come at me. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/66 "2016-03-18T17:01:27Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > This is a definitional change in the term “causal.” You and **bldysabba** discuss how you are using the term and get back to me. > > But, if I were to fine people who are making widgets, are you really trying to claim that we shouldn’t get less widgets? I mean, I’m not an Econ 101 fanaticist, so I’d be willing to entertain the notion that this might be true in the widget market. But if we’re debating capitalist economics, then I think the starting assumption has to be that a ban or a fine will disincentivize something, and it’s up to you to explain why it doesn’t work that way in the widget market. And there are markets that do function this way (like illegal drugs), but you can’t just point at those markets and tell me that the slavery “market” works this way without an argument. > > EDIT: All the “yous” here in the 2nd paragraph are general “you,” not referring to the poster I was responding to. Look, before this surreal episode, I was well disposed towards you as a poster, so I’ll try and explain this to you again. When you slap a tariff on a certain factor of production (slaves) only for a certain market(the USA), you are not disincentivising the use of slaves. You are only, if you’re lucky, disincentivising the use of slaves for products that are to be exported to the USA. If everything works as you would like it to , producers that use slaves will not be able to sell freely to the USA. (and I highly doubt you could achieve even this much as a practical matter, not to mention that the costs entailed in ascertaining which producers use slaves and which don’t would simply be an additional cost imposed on trade) Now, try and follow along with this next bit. NOT BEING ABLE TO SELL FREELY TO THE USA DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT SLAVERY IS DISINCENTIVISED. In a two factor, single market model where producers choose between only two factors of production (say slaves and freemen) and the only market perfectly taxes slaves as a factor of production, yes producers would shift to using freemen. But you are not operating inside this model. In general equilibrium, the producer has many choices. He can shift to selling to domestic markets or markets other than the USA. He can shift his slaves to producing other products for these markets which can increase his profits while his freemen workers produce whatever’s needed to sell to the USA. From the very beginning I have been asking you to substantiate the following key assumption underlying your arguments - that if you discincentivise slaveowners from trading with the USA, you are disincentivising slave ownership. However, this assumption only holds true **if there is a causal link between trade and slavery**. The reason the burden of proof here is on your shoulders is because free trade is recognised, by a broad spectrum of economists, to be beneficial for all involved. In a discussion about free trade, you have suddenly popped up and demanded that your concern about slavery be addressed in that context. You have failed to show data that slavery is a significant problem. You have also failed to show that trade and slavery have any link at all. If, in fact, trade and slavery are independent of each other, if you jiggle trade tariffs and specific sanctions around as you see fit and slavery remains unchanged (in other words, if there is no causal link between trade and slavery) then you are introducing barriers that do not help (and indeed may harm) slaves, but will certainly harm everyone else involved. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/67 "2016-03-18T17:09:13Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Look, before this surreal episode, I was well disposed towards you as a poster, so I’ll try and explain this to you again. When you slap a tariff on a certain factor of production (slaves) only for a certain market(the USA), you are not disincentivising the use of slaves. You are only, if you’re lucky, disincentivising the use of slaves for products that are to be exported to the USA. If everything works as you would like it to , producers that use slaves will not be able to sell freely to the USA. (and I highly doubt you could achieve even this much as a practical matter, not to mention that the costs entailed in ascertaining which producers use slaves and which don’t would simply be an additional cost imposed on trade) > > Now, try and follow along with this next bit. > > NOT BEING ABLE TO SELL FREELY TO THE USA DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT SLAVERY IS DISINCENTIVISED. > > In a two factor, single market model where producers choose between only two factors of production (say slaves and freemen) and the only market perfectly taxes slaves as a factor of production, yes producers would shift to using freemen. But you are not operating inside this model. In general equilibrium, the producer has many choices. He can shift to selling to domestic markets or markets other than the USA. He can shift his slaves to producing other products for these markets which can increase his profits while his freemen workers produce whatever’s needed to sell to the USA. > > From the very beginning I have been asking you to substantiate the following key assumption underlying your arguments - that if you discincentivise slaveowners from trading with the USA, you are disincentivising slave ownership. However, this assumption only holds true **if there is a causal link between trade and slavery**. > > The reason the burden of proof here is on your shoulders is because free trade is recognised, by a broad spectrum of economists, to be beneficial for all involved. In a discussion about free trade, you have suddenly popped up and demanded that your concern about slavery be addressed in that context. You have failed to show data that slavery is a significant problem. You have also failed to show that trade and slavery have any link at all. If, in fact, trade and slavery are independent of each other, if you jiggle trade tariffs and specific sanctions around as you see fit and slavery remains unchanged (in other words, if there is no causal link between trade and slavery) then you are introducing barriers that do not help (and indeed may harm) slaves, but will certainly harm everyone else involved. Ah, what the hell, I’m going to tackle this in a new post. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/68 "2016-03-18T17:10:11Z")
Holy shit, did you guys hear that BrightNShiny thinks \*\*Tom Hanks \*\*is the best actor in the world?! Can I get a bit of clarity here? First off, what kind of slavery is being referred to? Forced labour in ‘prison’ camps? Economic slavery? Both? Something different? Second, is anyone actually claiming that there is no causal link whatosever between trade and slavery—that if the US decided to use commerce (sanctions, protections, conditionalities, etc.) as its only tool to combat slavery it would impact consumers and other markets but largely have no impact on the intended beneficiaries (or have negative impacts)? Third, is anyone actually claiming that free trade itself causes slavery? Not claiming that free trade can/has led to more slavery, or that free trade can exacerbate existing societal ills, or that free-trading countries used force to enslave other countries in order to support their own capitalistic drive----but that free trade is a root cause of slavery? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/69 "2016-03-18T17:18:16Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I can’t even with this. You’re a fucking idiot, but let me walk you through this argument that I’ve made over and over (did you even read the thread?): > > 1. The US can ban or fine (by slapping a tariff on them) goods that are produced by slave labor. Most certainly it can. > [@](#): > > 1. This creates a negative incentive for an industry to keep using slave labor. No, this is where you’re mistaken. Assuming it is implemented perfectly, it creates a disincentive for producers that use slave labour to sell to the US. This is not the same thing as a disincentive on using slave labour, UNLESS you demonstrate a causal link between trade and usage of slave labour, which is all I’ve been asking from you ever since this whole sordid saga began. > [@](#): > > 1. In capitalist economic theory, when you create a negative incentive for something, you are supposed to get less of it. Please stop using the phrase capitalist economic theory, all it does is show off your ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/70 "2016-03-18T17:24:04Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > 1. So, if the US puts a tariff or ban on goods produced using slave labor, we’re supposed to get less goods produced using slave labor. Is that the point of departure? To oversimplify: That it’s agreed that in the US, we’ll get fewer _goods_ produced by using slave labour. That our cost of living will up, because the supply curve of widgets shifts in. In addition to raising the price, this decreases the demand for the goods, hence there are fewer goods being produced by slave labour. Yay, fewer goods being produced by slaves! But here’s the schism (I think). That’s the market for _goods_, whereas people are responding about the market for _labour_ and failures to recognize the distinction is leading to cross-arguing. If you consider the labour market (again, oversimplifying), then tariffs will shift the _demand_ curve in, leading to fewer people working and, er, since it’s slavery continuing to not get paid or getting paid even less, exacerbating their pre-existing condition. Hence, it seems from what I’m gathering here, there is a call for you to explain/cite the causal nexus in terms of labour markets. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/71 "2016-03-18T17:32:52Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Second, is anyone actually claiming that there is no causal link whatosever between trade and slavery—that if the US decided to use commerce (sanctions, protections, conditionalities, etc.) as its only tool to combat slavery it would impact consumers and other markets but largely have no impact on the intended beneficiaries (or have negative impacts)? I’m saying that, given the otherwise widely recognised beneficial effects of free trade, if someone wants to tinker with trade to have an impact on slavery, it is on them to show that the causal link exists. The null hypothesis is in fact that such a causal link does not exist. If your institutional setup allows for the use of slaves, they would be a cheaper factor of production regardless of which market you’re producing for, and any tariffs that are imposed on producers would only affect the export market. Economic power (in the form of embargoes/sanctions) exerted to alter the institutional setup (by demanding the local police/government/population act against slave users) and directly end slavery could work, but that goes well beyond the scope of what is being discussed here, and again such an approach would probably cause more human suffering than it would remove, UNLESS slavery is a very widespread problem. This is again something that BnS has failed to demonstrate inspite of threatening repeatedly that he has data to present on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/72 "2016-03-18T17:37:36Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Please stop using the phrase capitalist economic theory, all it does is show off your ignorance. Right back at you, you lying, ignorant moron. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/73 "2016-03-18T17:39:42Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > This is the problem with learning English-as-a-second-language in an impoverished third-world nation, these statements may seem logical in your baboon-dialect-as-mother-language, but they completely fail in English. Rather ironically, I learned English as a second language in an impoverished third world nation. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/74 "2016-03-18T17:41:10Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Right back at you, you lying, ignorant moron. But, but I haven’t even used the phrase capitalist economic theory. I don’t even ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/75 "2016-03-18T17:41:19Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Holy shit, did you guys hear that BrightNShiny thinks \*\*Tom Hanks \*\*is the best actor in the world?! > Can I get a bit of clarity here? > > First off, what kind of slavery is being referred to? Forced labour in ‘prison’ camps? Economic slavery? Both? Something different? Oh, geez. Why are you so interested in posting here if you can’t be bothered to read the GD thread. > [@](#): > > Second, is anyone actually claiming that there is no causal link whatosever between trade and slavery—that if the US decided to use commerce (sanctions, protections, conditionalities, etc.) as its only tool to combat slavery it would impact consumers and other markets but largely have no impact on the intended beneficiaries (or have negative impacts)? My oponnents may be claiming this, but it’s hard to tell, since they’re all over the map. But a lot of people have certainly tried to pin the opposite on me. > [@](#): > > Third, is anyone actually claiming that free trade itself causes slavery? Not claiming that free trade can/has led to more slavery, or that free trade can exacerbate existing societal ills, or that free-trading countries used force to enslave other countries in order to support their own capitalistic drive----but that free trade is a root cause of slavery? I’m not. But a lot of liars keep trying to pretend that I’m claiming that free-trade causes slavery. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/76 "2016-03-18T17:43:36Z")
OMFG, one of my very first statements to you in that thread **bldysabba** was that I’m against slavery even if the slavery would cause benefits to other people. Quit fucking asking me to argue that a reduction in slavery would be economically beneficial, since I already stated that I’m fundamentally opposed to slavery regardless of economic benefit. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/77 "2016-03-18T17:51:56Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > OMFG, one of my very first statements to you in that thread **bldysabba** was that I’m against slavery even if the slavery would cause benefits to other people. Quit fucking asking me to argue that a reduction in slavery would be economically beneficial, since I already stated that I’m fundamentally opposed to slavery regardless of economic benefit. You know, for someone who is so quick to accuse others of lying and misrepresenting your positions, you seem to have no qualms in making free with my words and arguments. Where in fuck’s name have I asked you to “argue that a reduction in slavery would be economically beneficial”? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/78 "2016-03-18T17:57:24Z")
Ok, let’s do this. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Look, before this surreal episode, I was well disposed towards you as a poster, so I’ll try and explain this to you again. When you slap a tariff on a certain factor of production (slaves) only for a certain market(the USA), you are not disincentivising the use of slaves. This is how the term incentive is used in economics. If you want to argue that it’s a diffuse incentive or that it’s a counter-productive incentive, that’s one thing. But quit fucking telling me that it’s not a disincentive. You just are making yourself look like an ignorant moron when you do that. > [@](#): > > You are only, if you’re lucky, disincentivising the use of slaves for products that are to be exported to the USA. If everything works as you would like it to , producers that use slaves will not be able to sell freely to the USA. (and I highly doubt you could achieve even this much as a practical matter, not to mention that the costs entailed in ascertaining which producers use slaves and which don’t would simply be an additional cost imposed on trade) So, this is actually the first non-lying argument you have made. My view is that the EU will generally follow along with the US on things like this, and that with US/EU leadership, a number of countries will then follow along. So, we’ll get increasing disincentives against using slave labor once the US is on board. > [@](#): > > Now, try and follow along with this next bit. > > NOT BEING ABLE TO SELL FREELY TO THE USA DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT SLAVERY IS DISINCENTIVISED. Now, try and follow along with this, you moron. If I say that a tax on cigarettes creates a negative incentive to smoke, that’s not a statement that smoking will be completely eliminated by tax on smoking. You clearly do not understand how the term “disincentive” is used in economics, and you are using it to mean something far broader than I ever claimed. > [@](#): > > In a two factor, single market model where producers choose between only two factors of production (say slaves and freemen) and the only market perfectly taxes slaves as a factor of production, yes producers would shift to using freemen. But you are not operating inside this model. In general equilibrium, the producer has many choices. He can shift to selling to domestic markets or markets other than the USA. He can shift his slaves to producing other products for these markets which can increase his profits while his freemen workers produce whatever’s needed to sell to the USA. And I never claimed that I could stop slavery in the domestic market in Burma. So, what? There’s lots of things I can’t stop people from doing. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t regulate where I have the ability to regulate. > [@](#): > > From the very beginning I have been asking you to substantiate the following key assumption underlying your arguments - that if you discincentivise slaveowners from trading with the USA, you are disincentivising slave ownership. However, this assumption only holds true \*\*if there is a causal link between trade and slavery . Bullshit. If I fine something, then I get less of that thing. That’s your causal link. > [@](#): > > The reason the burden of proof here is on your shoulders is because free trade is recognised, by a broad spectrum of economists, to be beneficial for all involved. In a discussion about free trade, you have suddenly popped up and demanded that your concern about slavery be addressed in that context. This last bit is a complete lie about what happened in that thread. > [@](#): > > You have failed to show data that slavery is a significant problem. You have also failed to show that trade and slavery have any link at all. Hey, bitch. I’m not going to produce any more data, since the President and Congress agreed with me and passed a ban. And trying to get any thing remotely protectionist through this Congress and this President is like pulling teeth. So, go fucking read the Congressional record. If you hadn’t been such a lying asshole, I might have provided the info, but eh? Who cares? My side fucking won. > [@](#): > > If, in fact, trade and slavery are independent of each other, if you jiggle trade tariffs and specific sanctions around as you see fit and slavery remains unchanged (in other words, if there is no causal link between trade and slavery) then you are introducing barriers that do not help (and indeed may harm) slaves, but will certainly harm everyone else involved. This is an economic model. But, you know, I have plenty of historical instances where US trade sanctions got the behavior out of other countries that the US wanted. So, I’m quite fine with seeing how this ban plays out. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/79 "2016-03-18T18:01:45Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Rather ironically, I learned English as a second language in an impoverished third world nation. Ah, fuck. Ok, I think before we continue this, do you think there’s a language issue here? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/80 "2016-03-18T18:03:50Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I can’t even with this. You’re a fucking idiot, but let me walk you through this argument that I’ve made over and over (did you even read the thread?): > > 1. The US can ban or fine (by slapping a tariff on them) goods that are produced by slave labor. > > [snip] We know you’ve been making this argument over and over, that’s why we keep saying you’re wrong. First of all, which specific country are you referring to who produces goods _lawfully_ using slave labor? Do we have any trade relationships with countries who fully and publically allow slavery? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you seriously freely mixing trade policy with criminal code? You’re fucking wrong, your other points completely fail, get over yourself. Slapping an import tariff on goods that are _illegal_ to import … I guess I expect too much from semi-evolved rodents. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241.md?page=5)