Well, that’s one theory. Or maybe, with bans coming into place, governments start cracking down on slavery because export goods get them hard currency, and US dollars are a pretty valuable hard currency. And as more countries come on board, the slaver country has less and less incentive to use slaves because it wants the other countries currency.
We can spit out these models all day. I’m not sure, but you seem to be making an argument that a ban on slave-created goods may result in… well, I’m not sure what you are claiming here, so you’ll have to clarify. Lowered living standards? More slavery? Something else?
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).
Right. Congress passed a law to ban something that was already illegal. You’re a fucking idiot.
No, you dumb asshole. I’ll repeat again, cross my fingers and pray that something gets into your thick skull. Disincentivising slave owners from trading with the US is NOT THE SAME THING AS DISINCENTIVISING SLAVE OWNERS FROM USING SLAVES.
Sigh. On the contrary, I understand perfectly what disincentives are, but it is clear you do not understand what a causal link is. Here’s another example. Let’s say you want fewer people to get lung cancer in India. So you apply a heavy tax on cigarettes in India. You’ve created a negative incentive to smoke right? Everything’s better right? Fewer people will get cancer right? No. You’ve created a negative incentive on SMOKING CIGARETTES. But in India there are these things called bidis. And gutka (chewing tobacco). Both of these things are even more harmful for you than smoking cigarettes. So if people can substitute away from cigarettes to bidis and gutka, a tax on cigarettes may not have a causal link with incidence of lung cancer. IT WON’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND MAY MAKE THINGS WORSE.
Similarly, a tariff barrier on slave users IS NOT a disincentive on slave using. It is a disincentive on trading. If slave users can substitute export markets for domestic markets or other export markets, you may not make any difference at all to slavery, and may make things worse.
Hooold on. Let me get this straight. You don’t care about slavery or slaves. You just don’t want to buy something made by slaves? Slaves can exist and be driven to work the same as they were before, it’s all hunky dory as long as none of the products they make cross your shores? If that’s the case, then I apologise. All this while I was working off the mistaken assumption that you may actually have cared for people, instead of just wanting your own hands to be clean.
This is a fucking flat-out lie, and you’re a flat-out liar. Saying that I don’t have the ability to regulate something is not a statement that I approve of that something.
God, such a fucking liar. Because I don’t have the ability to regulate Burma’s domestic market, you want to lie and claim that I don’t care about slaves. You are really an evil lying dumb-fuck. We are fucking done. You are an evil, lying bitch, and I’m am going to cuss you out anytime I see you in this thread again.
So if you do actually care about slavery, instead of slave made products not reaching your hands, why aren’t you showing me the causal link between trade and slavery?
Because I can believe that if the USA banned slave users from exporting goods to the USA, fewer slave made goods would make it to the USA. What I would like to see evidence for is that this would result in less slavery.
Again, you’ve yet to show how American tariffs will actually help foreign slaves. That’s his point. It just seems like you don’t want to buy slave-made goods, which is a noble goal in itself, but it doesn’t actually help the slaves. Please at least attempt to show how tariffs help slaves. We had a few hundred years of slavery ourselves. Did foreign tariffs help American slaves?
Like I said, we’re done debating, you lying piece of shit. All you have done is lie constantly in your arguments against me, but now it’s way past the line. I’m not debating you any more.
Um, what? Why the hell should I have to show that? As I’ve already stated, I’m opposed to slavery regardless of any economic benefit it may bring.
Although, there are a lot of economic papers out there claiming that slavery is bad for an economy overall. There are economic papers out there claiming that slavery was responsible for the lack of industrialization in the South. It’s not exactly some novel viewpoint to state that slavery is bad for an economy. We’ll just end up with dueling cites arguing over that. But, since I’m not okay with slavery at all, why should we go through the dueling cite exercise?
These arguments get stupider and stupider.
But…
If you would bother to read the thread, I did lay out a model as to how I thought trade sanctions could work in the long term. So, you just didn’t read the fucking thread again?
Yes. You said that tariffs disincentivize slavery in foreign countries. Every response in this thread has illustrated how that is wrong. The only thing tariffs do is disincentivize trade with the US. Can you please explain how that helps slaves? I’m not asking about any other economic benefit. Just benefit to the slaves.
And again, we’re not asking about evidence that slavery is bad, economically, morally or otherwise. Just evidence that tariffs are good for slaves.
Nobody else is producing evidence. They’re all just stating models. I stated my own model. Why is my unsupported model somehow magically less convincing than their unsupported model? Why do I have to produce evidence when they don’t have to?
I stated one model, and either produce an argument against it or STFU. But I don’t have to fucking produce evidence for my model when nobody else is producing evidence for theirs.
Plus, since the ban passed, we now have a real-world experiment going on to see if my model is correct. If you want proof, you’re going to have to wait six months for it.
Because they produced reasoned arguments damning to your model. You don’t have to produce evidence, but a rational argument rebutting those criticisms of your model would be nice.
I’m not making an argument about the topic writ large per se, I’m trying to understand the claims and positions being made (and wondering whether I used ‘writ large’ correctly) and where things diverge.
Again, I think the split is that you’re saying that imposing tariffs will reduce the number of slave-made widgets because markets for them will be smaller. Others are agreeing with that, but are going on to argue that the slave owners will simply turn from making exportable widgets to making domestic shoes; nothing the US does trade-wise is going to improve the slave’s lot. Hence they’re asking you (or it seems to me they’re asking you) to provide a causal nexus between trade-based sanctions on slave-made goods and decreases in (or improvements to) slavery.
There are a few other things that seem to be unclear and causing a split (perhaps about nothing). Hence my earlier question about the nature of the slaves in question, whether they’re economic, imprisoned or ‘traditional’ (for lack of a better word) slaves. That context makes a difference to how approaches are framed and may be leading to simultaneous arguments about two different things.
Another thing that seems to be missing in the spittle and fur is the 21st century context. Over time, a lot of agreements have been signed that effectively say “hey, look, let’s not get into trade wars; they suck. So if anyone tries to start one, lot of sanctions (many of them automatic) will kick in and everyone else can hurt the trade aggressor.” Some agreements also say things like “you know what, fuck all this imperialist shit. We’ll participate in your trading regime, but we’ll do so if you committ yourselves to making it pretty damn hard to impose your will on us (we also know you try and cheat at adding protections, so we’re going to make doing that in the name of good things hard too).” So even if the US had the political will to use trade as a means to decrease slavery, it’s very questionable whether it could effectively do so.
So those two (of many other) contextual factors make discussions of what the US could/could not do somewhat difficult. (To throw Trump in here (sorry, no one is Trumping in here, this is an aside), this is why a lot of people are flabbergasted that he thinks he can break/renegotiate agreements and do all the Great Things he talks about.) So, without everyone being on the same page it’s kind of hard to have a theoretical discussion about what could be done in the midst of lots of constraints.
BrightNShiny, you are one of the most prickly wackos I have ever seen. Any other anti-free traders are repulsed by your threads, making me give up the idea of arguing with you/them.
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.
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.