# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/101 "2016-03-18T19:39:54Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Just to try and synthesize the argument I think BnS needs to respond to: > > If there were any industries in any country that were dominated by slavery the way King Cotton in the antebellum South was, I think you might have a point. As it is, the slave-free companies (so long as you can tell them apart) will trade with the US instead, leaving the slave owners to pick up the slack domestically (or by trading with other non-protectionist countries). So what you’ve done is introduce all the ills of protectionism, with zero benefit to the slaves. > > Do you have an argument against this? Do you just not believe it? Do you not care? > > I know this is the Pit and all, but it seems like an interesting discussion if you can ignore all the white hot rage. My arguments are in this thread, and I’m not going to bother to repeat them for you. I’ve already answered this. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/102 "2016-03-18T19:40:19Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Except you can’t even produce a counter-argument. I’m sorry, let me use smaller words … This is a crime, not trade. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Hey, go take it up with the President and Congress, since they just passed a law banning goods created using slave labor. I can’t help it if you’re a pig-ignorant moron who doesn’t know about the topic (and I provided a link in the GD thread). Appealing to authority … I agree Congress is expert at passing legislation that they can wave around back home and get more votes … that doesn’t mean they are capable of passing any meaningful legislation … > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Right. Congress passed a law to ban something that was already illegal. You’re a fucking idiot. … unless of course it just bans something that was already illegal. If your argument is based even in part on Congress acting effectively, you’re fucking wrong. I insist, which country are we talking about, the one where slavery is openly allowed? ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/103 "2016-03-18T19:47:15Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Could this be another point of departure? This is a very polite way to phrase what the other posters are doing. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that as a moral and ethical principle the US should not be buying slave-made goods. Irrespective of whether doing so improves or harms the economy, irrespective of whether or not doing so improves or harms the life of the slave, it’s fundamentally wrong to purchase slave-made goods. More or less. And I’ve been saying this over and over. I mean, I don’t think either slaves or the economy are better off with slavery, and that’s not exactly some radical economics position, but since I’m fundamentally opposed to slavery, it’s not relevant to my argument. I’d adjust the argument a bit though to say that since slavery is a fundamental wrong, purchasing slave-made goods is a fundamental wrong. > [@](#): > > Whether it’s possible to live an individual life that way is not important; buying slave-made goods is a moral wrong and should be avoided. The US should recognize this moral imperative and do what it can to make buying slave-made goods difficult. Yep. And since the US often has the ability to get other countries to do what it wants by using it’s trade power, then trade power can be a useful tool to attack the issue. > [@](#): > > Everyone is bringing up economic arguments and questions of whether or not it will ultimately benefit the slaves. But this is irrelevant to the argument that buying slave-made goods is prima facie wrong. > > Is that anywhere close? And, also, a comparative advantage argument is irrelevant to the argument that buying slave-made goods is prima facie wrong. Which is where this all started in the other thread. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/104 "2016-03-18T19:50:52Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m sorry, let me use smaller words … This is a crime, not trade. It’s a crime that can be attacked using trade sanctions, you dumb fuck. > [@](#): > > Appealing to authority … I agree Congress is expert at passing legislation that they can wave around back home and get more votes … that doesn’t mean they are capable of passing any meaningful legislation … And, you didn’t even read the cite about the legislation in the GD thread, did you? Again, you are a pig-ignorant moron who doesn’t actually know anything about the topic. > [@](#): > > … unless of course it just bans something that was already illegal. If your argument is based even in part on Congress acting effectively, you’re fucking wrong. > > I insist, which country are we talking about, the one where slavery is openly allowed? Go fucking read the cite, dickhead. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/105 "2016-03-18T20:04:49Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > My arguments are in this thread, and I’m not going to bother to repeat them for you. I’ve already answered this. No, you haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/106 "2016-03-18T20:57:41Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Fuck you. [Moderating] Remember: telling other posters “fuck you” is against the Pit’s language rules. Please avoid this in the future. No warning issued. [/Moderating] ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/107 "2016-03-18T21:26:33Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > It’s a crime that can be attacked using trade sanctions, you dumb fuck. No, criminals don’t follow trade laws, you’d only sanction the honest businesspersons … maybe take a shit sample to your vet, have him check for worms. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > And, you didn’t even read the cite about the legislation in the GD thread, did you? Again, you are a pig-ignorant moron who doesn’t actually know anything about the topic. > > Go fucking read the cite, dickhead. I have, please, chapter and verse where the citation says a specific country has lawful and open slavery. Someplace where one can have deed to another enforceable in the courts. Pure stupidity to make the honest pay the price, as stupid as trusting the US Congress … and I still don’t think you’re using Google Translate properly. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/108 "2016-03-18T23:27:17Z")
What **BrightNShiny** is presenting is a fairly traditional left-wing philosophy that “free trade” is not an end to itself, since economic actors are not all playing by the same internal rules. The astoundingly piss-poor job he is doing of it, the torrential downpour of emotionally-unhinged blather, is what I’m intrigued by. Carry on, soldier. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/109 "2016-03-18T23:31:20Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Uh, no. Let me explain it to you clearly, you dumbfuck. If I make this statement: > > This is not a statement that I support Cuba sanctions. This is not a statement that I’m against Cuba sanctions. This is not a statement that I support free trade. Or that I’m against free trade. Or that I support protectionism. Or that I’m against protectionism. Or that I think Tom Cruise is the best actor in the world. Or that I think he’s the shittiest actor in the world. But, hey, a lot of dumbfucks are going to try and pretend I have those positions. > > Economics is a complex topic. I’m happy to explain it or debate it with people who are actually willing to do that. But I’m tired of listing to dumbfucks who don’t know about the topic throwing strawmen at me. So, I’m going with, “Spectacularly incapable of expressing himself clearly,” with a side of, “Not too good on understanding other people’s words, either.” ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/110 "2016-03-19T01:27:50Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > 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. It strikes me that this is another place where things may have gone off the rails. If I understand correctly (far from a guarantee of that), there’s an unspoken, underlying premise here: that tinkering with trade is permissible \*only \*to remedy harms caused by free trade. Therefore, if someone wants to tinker with trade to affect issue X, then they need to show that free trade is causing issue x. If that premise is not mutually accepted (or at least recognized), then the whole thread of conversation about whether or not causal links need to be demonstrated is premature and leads to frustrating arguing about windmills. Unshared premises can result in things that only look like straw men (though they are just as empty). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/111 "2016-03-19T02:18:34Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Could this be another point of departure? > > Are you saying that as a moral and ethical principle the US should not be buying slave-made goods. Irrespective of whether doing so improves or harms the economy, irrespective of whether or not doing so improves or harms the life of the slave, it’s fundamentally wrong to purchase slave-made goods. > > Whether it’s possible to live an individual life that way is not important; buying slave-made goods is a moral wrong and should be avoided. The US should recognize this moral imperative and do what it can to make buying slave-made goods difficult. > > Everyone is bringing up economic arguments and questions of whether or not it will ultimately benefit the slaves. But this is irrelevant to the argument that buying slave-made goods is prima facie wrong. > > Is that anywhere close? I can’t see how any moral person could believe otherwise. It’s not as if buying slave made goods can ever actually improve the lives of slaves, for the simple reason that they are slaves, and thus won’t get any money from what they do. I don’t see how you can not come at this with the default being “I won’t support slave labor.” An argument that you can’t prove that it will help makes no sense. It’s not up to anyone to prove it will help. It’s up to others to prove that it will cause harm–harm greater than that of supporting slavery. As for how it could help, I’m not economist. But I see some assumptions being made that don’t seem to be explained. The first is that there is another market that is supported by free goods, and that, if the U.S. stops buying slave goods, the slave goods will just be bought up by those who previously had to buy free goods. I don’t see how you can be sure of that. What if the bulk of the goods are bought by the U.S.? One person mentioned that the goods would be bought domestically–well I know for sure there are goods that are produced in one country but not actually purchased by that country. Is it not a possibility that the slave goods market will go down for a particular good? That free good production will go up to compensate? I also see a lot of mention of tariffs. What tariffs? My understanding is that buying slave goods is just flat out forbidden. And you have have documentation showing that you didn’t get your parts from slave goods. That would be sanctions, not tariffs. And sanctions have been used for trying to change politics forever. We did it to Iran and Cuba, and it appears to have worked. I’m not going to get down and dirty with this. It’s not that important to me for various reasons, mostly centering around the serenity prayer: I couldn’t change things if I wanted to. That and I have more immediate concerns. But I don’t like the fighting in this thread, and B&S is too angry to say any of this stuff. Plus I don’t like seeing the mentally ill be made fun of: if you really think he’s off his meds, leave him alone–he’s harmless, and you will not be able to convince him. If you don’t, then bringing it up is pointless, and only belittles those who do have medical problems. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/112 "2016-03-19T04:02:52Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > It strikes me that this is another place where things may have gone off the rails. > > If I understand correctly (far from a guarantee of that), there’s an unspoken, underlying premise here: that tinkering with trade is permissible \*only \*to remedy harms caused by free trade. Therefore, if someone wants to tinker with trade to affect issue X, then they need to show that free trade is causing issue x. No, nothing is unspoken, you’re just not understanding it correctly. The words ‘causal link’ mean that the relationship between phenomena A and B is such that if you tinker with A, B changes. They do not mean that B was caused entirely by A. This is very standard usage according to me. But it is possible that it is a slightly technical term that those trained in research will understand better. I’ll break my argument down again. a) Free trade is widely recognised by a near consensus of economists to be on balance beneficial to society b) Slavery can very easily be occurring independently of trade. This implies that trade is not a determining factor in the usage of slaves. Whether you trade less or more with people who use slaves, it will not affect the usage of slaves\*, UNLESS you demonstrate a causal link. c) Imposing taxes and hidden costs on trade (for e.g determining who is using slaves and who is not will have a cost) means you will reduce something that is beneficial to society (free trade) without showing either that the problem you care about(slavery) is a significant one(in terms of number of people affected), or that it will be affected at all by your proposed measures. Hope that’s clearer. \*As I’ve pointed out earlier, it is very easy to believe that you may even harm the slaves. Slave owners can easily switch to serving other markets, and if they make less profits, why, they can just squeeze the slaves more. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241/113 "2016-03-19T16:14:35Z")
There is, of course, the argument that free® trade HAS helped liberalize regions of the world like Asia, Russia, and Eastern Europe. Much like the philosophy of the multiculturalist hawks, mere access to outside people tends to soften harden dogmas. The Post-WW2 global economy has basically been a history lesson on why free trade is a force for good, and protectionist policies in the name of (forced) moral appropriation are usually bad. I just wish OP could engage in this discussion with some modicum of competency. /shrug [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-trade-liars/749241.md?page=5)