UK to negotiaite free trade agreements

[alal...@gmail.com]

Therese May, the new UK PM, is planning to negotiate free trade agreements with their trading partners. In particular, she is planning to negotiate a free trade agreement with Australia.

Opposition to free trade is strongest among the least educated.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

[Bret Cahill]

How can it be free trade if there are negotiations?

What's there to negotiate with free trade? Tariffs?

That's like a license for free speech.

[wien9al...@gmail.com]

If and when Britain exits the EU then many trade negotiations will be needed with many countries to then get access to their markets On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:23:30 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote something.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 07/18/2016 06:20 AM, wien9al...@gmail.com wrote:
> If and when Britain exits the EU then many trade negotiations will be needed with many countries to then get access to their markets On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:23:30 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote something.
>

They could use real free trade and just have no rules.... then when
something shows up that is detrimental to their society they can stop it
with a law. NO treaty necessary.

--
That's Karma ;)

Obama has no problem labeling Republicans as his enemy, and he can label
Republicans as racists easily enough...

Obama has no problem calling the police, racists and condemning them.

Why does Obama have so much difficulty calling Muslims, terrorists and
condemning them?

[Bret Cahill]

> > If and when Britain exits the EU then many trade negotiations will be needed with many countries to then get access to their markets On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:23:30 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote something.

> They could use real free trade and just have no rules.... then when
> something shows up that is detrimental to their society they can stop it
> with a law.

A law to hike taxes.

[wien9al...@gmail.com]

If there is no trade agreement then expect protectionalism to increase artificially the prices of imported goods so that then locally-made items will be competitive and unemployment will then be lower. Free trade lowers prices but also increases unemployment. On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:23:30 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote something.

[alal...@gmail.com]

Imperfect free trade agreements are better than no free trade agreements.

[Bret Cahill]

> > How can it be free trade if there are negotiations?

> > What's there to negotiate with free trade? Tariffs?

> > That's like a license for free speech.

> Imperfect free trade agreements are better than no free trade agreements.

You think we should have a 23% tariff. I think we should have a 31% tariff. They pass a 26% tariff so everyone thinks the trade agreement is imperfect and no one can call it "free trade."

"Imperfect free trade agreements" are just "trade agreements" and no one is against all trade.

You cannot even buy a loaf of bread w/o _some_ kind of trade.


Bret Cahill

[nickname unavailable]

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Therese May, the new UK PM, is planning to negotiate free trade agreements with their trading partners. In particular, she is planning to negotiate a free trade agreement with Australia.

ah, but the free trade agreements they will have now, still means they will have their own sovereignty, to address their own issues, and not be dominated by corporations.

>
> Opposition to free trade is strongest among the least educated.
>

doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome or result, is the sign of insanity.
we fought two world wars over the collapse of free trade, and you want to fight another one.

> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor

who knows not a thing about how capitalism works.

[nickname unavailable]

its not a free trade agreement.

you do not even know what you are talking about. these are really not free trade agreements, they are bilateral agreements, where two parties come together for a agreement that is beneficial to both. notice how she says we will control our borders and our laws, we will not lower our labor standards, and we will have all stakeholders at the negotiating table, unlike the crap the clinton/bush/train wreck cabal foisted on us.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1447494/mays-new-chief-europe-negotiator-david-davis-lays-out-plans-to-take-us-out-of-eu/


BREXIT STRATEGY May’s new chief Europe negotiator David Davis lays out plans to take us out of EU
Minister expects negotiations with UK's favoured trade partners to take place within 12-24 months
By DAVID DAVIS, Newly appointed Brexit Secretary
15th July 2016, 4:10 am

BREXIT gives us many tools to deal with the very serious economic challenges we face in the coming decades.
First, leaving the EU gives us back control of our trade policy — and the opportunity to maximise returns from free trade.
Because any deals currently settled are obtained by finding a 28-nation compromise, the EU is clumsy at negotiating. That is why we have deals with only two of our top ten non-EU trading partners.
First order of business is to put that right. As statements from the US, Australia, China and India show, these countries are as keen to knock down trade barriers as we are.
Easier … ‘single countries are easier to negotiate with than block groups’
Single countries, with ability to be flexible and focussed, negotiate trade deals far more quickly than trade blocs. South Korea negotiated a deal with the US in a single year. The EU takes more than six years to negotiate trade deals.
I expect the new Prime Minister to trigger a round of global trade deals with all our most favoured partners — and the negotiation of most within between 12 and 24 months.
Better deal … arrangements with the US and China will give us more than double the trade area of the EU
Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU.
Deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU — and of course, we will also be seeking deals with many others.
We should continue lessening tax burden
This will provide massive markets for our exports and cut costs for our manufacturing industries.
Take our car manufacturers. Electronics in today’s cars exceed 25 per cent of total vehicle value. And the vast majority of the world’s electronic components are manufactured in Asia. Many of these face tariffs, increasing cost. Elimination of such tariffs will decrease the cost of manufacturing a car in the UK, increasing our industry’s global competitiveness.
The same will happen across other industries as tariffs come down and the cost of doing business with the UK is reduced. The new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit from the EU but be fully negotiated and understood well before then. That means foreign investment by companies keen to take advantage of these deals will grow in the next two years.
Cheaper … lowering the cost of manufacturing a car in the UK will make the country able to compete globally
At home, we should be expanding export support arrangements for companies too small to have their own export departments but who wish to sell into these newly opened up marketplaces — an 0800 number that a small specialist manufacturer in the North of England, say, could call for practical help in Shanghai and Sao Paulo, Cape Town and Calcutta.
Regulation already in place will stay, for the moment, but the flood of new regulation from Europe will be halted.
We can then look at structuring our regulatory environment so it helps business, rather than hinders. At the moment all businesses in the UK must comply with EU regulation, even if they export nothing to the EU. Instead, we should look to match regulation for companies to their primary export markets.
I am not talking about employment regulation. Britain has a relatively flexible workforce and, so long as employment law stays reasonably stable, it should not be a problem for business. There is also a political, perhaps sentimental, point. The great British industrial working classes voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. I am not at all attracted by the idea of rewarding them by cutting their rights.
Negotiations … as tariffs go down, the cost of doing business with the UK is reduced
We should also continue lessening the tax burden. In particular, taxes that have a harmful effect on growth.
This Conservative Government has done good work in this area, with corporate tax cut from almost 30 per cent to 20 and plans to cut it to 15.
This will make the UK a more attractive business destination — and tax gained from companies moving their operations to the UK, through the people they employ and the sales they generate, will more than offset any reduced corporate tax take.
This leaves the question of Single Market access. The ideal outcome is continued tariff-free access. Once the European nations realise we will not budge on control of our borders, they will want to talk, in their own interests. But what if they are irrational, as so many Remain-supporting commentators asserted they would be in the run-up to the Referendum?
This is one of the reasons for taking a little time before triggering Article 50. The negotiating strategy has to be properly designed, with serious consultation.
Constitutional propriety requires us to consult with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.
We will have a more dynamic economy
Common sense implies we should consult with stakeholders like the City, Confederation of British Industry, Trades Union Congress, small business bodies, the National Farmers Union, universities and research foundations.
None should have any sort of veto but we should try to accommodate their concerns, so long as it does not compromise the main aim. This whole process should be completed to allow triggering of Article 50 before or by the start of next year.
So how will this all look if we get it right? We will have a more dynamic economy, trading throughout the world.
Our businesses will have greater global opportunities and be more competitive.
Outlook? … the UK will be more competitive and have greater global opportunities if successful
There will be lower prices in the shops once we are outside the Common External Tariff. There will be higher wages for the poorest, an immigration system that allows us to control numbers. We will have control of our laws, our lives not hampered by needless regulations.
Brexit favours an export-based growth strategy and that should be what we embrace.
In summary, we need a brisk but measured approach to Brexit. This would involve concluding consultations and laying out the detailed plans in the next few months.
As the free trade round and associated economic policies progress, we should see increased foreign investment and domestic capital expenditure to take advantage of the opportunities created.
Some of the economic benefits of Brexit will materialise even before the probable formal departure from the EU, in around December 2018.
Economic estimates are subject to the vagaries of the world economy, but this approach should allow us to present to the British electorate in 2020 the early fruits of a successful, global, trade-based economic strategy as we build our place in the world.

[alal...@gmail.com]

I know enough to have founded and led several large businesses. What real world experience do you have? Have you founded or led any large for profit organizations?

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 06:14:50 UTC+5:30, nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 11:52:47 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 18 July 2016 01:45:38 UTC+5:30, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > How can it be free trade if there are negotiations?
> > >
> > > What's there to negotiate with free trade? Tariffs?
> > >
> > > That's like a license for free speech.
> >
> > Imperfect free trade agreements are better than no free trade agreements.
> >
>
> its not a free trade agreement.
>
> you do not even know what you are talking about. these are really not free trade agreements, they are bilateral agreements, where two parties come together for a agreement that is beneficial to both. notice how she says we will control our borders and our laws, we will not lower our labor standards, and we will have all stakeholders at the negotiating table, unlike the crap the clinton/bush/train wreck cabal foisted on us.

You are ignorant. The term "free trade" is often used in this article. For example, "Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU."

[nickname unavailable]

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 4:31:21 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 05:00:17 UTC+5:30, nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Therese May, the new UK PM, is planning to negotiate free trade agreements with their trading partners. In particular, she is planning to negotiate a free trade agreement with Australia.
> >
> >
> > ah, but the free trade agreements they will have now, still means they will have their own sovereignty, to address their own issues, and not be dominated by corporations.
> >
> > >
> > > Opposition to free trade is strongest among the least educated.
> > >
> >
> >
> > doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome or result, is the sign of insanity.
> > we fought two world wars over the collapse of free trade, and you want to fight another one.
> >
> >
> > > Abhinav Lal
> > > Writer & Investor
> >
> > who knows not a thing about how capitalism works.
>
> I know enough to have founded and led several large businesses.

smart people can do dumb things. its why there are not meritocracies. the american worker just bailed out a lot of smart people to the tune of trillions of dollars a few years ago, and most likely in the near future, will have to again. because free trade simply does not work.

What real world experience do you have? Have you founded or led any large for profit organizations?

i own patents and copyrights. they are in a small market, but i sell my stuff world wide, and make money doing it. some i have crafted with my own bare hands.
instead of working yesterday, i decided to take the wife to the vacation home, and spent the day in the hot tube drinking sweet tea and munching.
so instead of trying to tell people how smart you are, and insulting us, perhaps you should understand what you are endorsing, has never worked, and is not working now.
and what the u.k. is trying to do now, is bilateral trade, its centuries old, and they will not gut their sovereignty and laws to trade. it will be beneficial to both sides.
instead you are trying to ram a system down our throats that is a failure, producing millions of losers, destroying whole countries, sending the world into deflation, no one is winning but a few, hardly the stuff smart people do.

[nickname unavailable]

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 4:54:05 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 06:14:50 UTC+5:30, nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 11:52:47 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, 18 July 2016 01:45:38 UTC+5:30, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > How can it be free trade if there are negotiations?
> > > >
> > > > What's there to negotiate with free trade? Tariffs?
> > > >
> > > > That's like a license for free speech.
> > >
> > > Imperfect free trade agreements are better than no free trade agreements.
> > >
> >
> > its not a free trade agreement.
> >
> > you do not even know what you are talking about. these are really not free trade agreements, they are bilateral agreements, where two parties come together for a agreement that is beneficial to both. notice how she says we will control our borders and our laws, we will not lower our labor standards, and we will have all stakeholders at the negotiating table, unlike the crap the clinton/bush/train wreck cabal foisted on us.
>
> You are ignorant. The term "free trade" is often used in this article. For example, "Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU."
>
>

the E.U. was a free trade zone, where capital, labor, goods and services had complete free movement, and any local law or regulation, was over ruled by free trade rules of the E.U.
the british prime minister calls it free trade for the gullible, notice that free trade requires the complete free movement of capital, labor, goods and services and no regulations over ruling that. notice that in the article the prime minister says we will not gut british labor laws, nor british laws or sovereignty, complete control of the u.k's borders, hardly free trade.

you think that if there is no free trade, there is no trade, that is the sign of a feverish belief. a black or white type of thinking.

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 20:38:47 UTC+5:30, nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 4:31:21 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 05:00:17 UTC+5:30, nickname unavailable wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Therese May, the new UK PM, is planning to negotiate free trade agreements with their trading partners. In particular, she is planning to negotiate a free trade agreement with Australia.
> > >
> > >
> > > ah, but the free trade agreements they will have now, still means they will have their own sovereignty, to address their own issues, and not be dominated by corporations.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Opposition to free trade is strongest among the least educated.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome or result, is the sign of insanity.
> > > we fought two world wars over the collapse of free trade, and you want to fight another one.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Abhinav Lal
> > > > Writer & Investor
> > >
> > > who knows not a thing about how capitalism works.
> >
> > I know enough to have founded and led several large businesses.
>
> smart people can do dumb things. its why there are not meritocracies. the american worker just bailed out a lot of smart people to the tune of trillions of dollars a few years ago, and most likely in the near future, will have to again. because free trade simply does not work.

Human beings aren't perfect, and economics is not a science, but in general smart people make fewer mistakes. The banking crisis had nothing to do with free trade. It had do with the greed of the bankers.

>
> What real world experience do you have? Have you founded or led any large for profit organizations?
>
>
> i own patents and copyrights. they are in a small market, but i sell my stuff world wide, and make money doing it. some i have crafted with my own bare hands.

So you have no experience founding or leading large businesses.

> instead of working yesterday, i decided to take the wife to the vacation home, and spent the day in the hot tube drinking sweet tea and munching.
> so instead of trying to tell people how smart you are, and insulting us, perhaps you should understand what you are endorsing, has never worked, and is not working now.

I am sorry if my posts are found to be insulting by you. Try not to be so sensitive.

> and what the u.k. is trying to do now, is bilateral trade, its centuries old, and they will not gut their sovereignty and laws to trade. it will be beneficial to both sides.

Many free trade agreements are between two countries, and only cut selected tariffs. If you don't want to call them FTAs, then that's fine by me.

> instead you are trying to ram a system down our throats that is a failure, producing millions of losers, destroying whole countries, sending the world into deflation, no one is winning but a few, hardly the stuff smart people do.
>

Smart people look after themselves.

[nickname unavailable]

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:44:08 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 20:38:47 UTC+5:30, nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 4:31:21 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 05:00:17 UTC+5:30, nickname unavailable wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Therese May, the new UK PM, is planning to negotiate free trade agreements with their trading partners. In particular, she is planning to negotiate a free trade agreement with Australia.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ah, but the free trade agreements they will have now, still means they will have their own sovereignty, to address their own issues, and not be dominated by corporations.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Opposition to free trade is strongest among the least educated.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome or result, is the sign of insanity.
> > > > we fought two world wars over the collapse of free trade, and you want to fight another one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Abhinav Lal
> > > > > Writer & Investor
> > > >
> > > > who knows not a thing about how capitalism works.
> > >
> > > I know enough to have founded and led several large businesses.
> >
> > smart people can do dumb things. its why there are not meritocracies. the american worker just bailed out a lot of smart people to the tune of trillions of dollars a few years ago, and most likely in the near future, will have to again. because free trade simply does not work.
>
> Human beings aren't perfect,

and there is no such thing as a meritocracy either.

and economics is not a science,

it is not, and will never be one, till the shills for the rich, are driven out of the profession. till then, it will always be called the dismal science.

but in general smart people make fewer mistakes.

that is not true. the smart money just drove the whole worlds economy into the dumpster, and central banks all over the world have poured trillions into their balance sheets, just to keep those meritocracies afloat.
and the smart money today, is still trying to force a unworkable system down the throats of the worlds economy, even as that system has proven to be a dismal failure yet again.

The banking crisis had nothing to do with free trade. It had do with the greed of the bankers.

the greed is what is driving free trade. wall street is one of the main driving forces behind free trade. you are really not up to this are you.
all free trade is, is asset stripping, just like colonialism was. you would think with your countries recent history, you would know better. unless of course greed is driving you also.

>
> >
> > What real world experience do you have? Have you founded or led any large for profit organizations?
> >
> >
> > i own patents and copyrights. they are in a small market, but i sell my stuff world wide, and make money doing it. some i have crafted with my own bare hands.
>
> So you have no experience founding or leading large businesses.
>

i have enough experience making a profit to know how capitalism works. since i have been doing this almost my whole life.
in fact, anyone who understands capitalism, knows its driven by wages and environment. you can be smart, have great products, innovative, merit, etc. and still fail.
in fact, in your so called meritocracy, nothing gets rewarded faster than failure.

> > instead of working yesterday, i decided to take the wife to the vacation home, and spent the day in the hot tube drinking sweet tea and munching.
> > so instead of trying to tell people how smart you are, and insulting us, perhaps you should understand what you are endorsing, has never worked, and is not working now.
>
> I am sorry if my posts are found to be insulting by you. Try not to be so sensitive.
>

who is sensitive. you are condescending. i never bring up my business backround till someone tries to arm wrestle me down with theirs.

> > and what the u.k. is trying to do now, is bilateral trade, its centuries old, and they will not gut their sovereignty and laws to trade. it will be beneficial to both sides.
>
> Many free trade agreements are between two countries, and only cut selected tariffs. If you don't want to call them FTAs, then that's fine by me.
>

its called bilateral trade. and as i have been arguing for decades, its what we used to do quite nicely, and it worked good enough. we kept our sovereignty, to address our own needs. and it appears that that is the way the u.k. is going to go now.
as i have said to you. two countries will come to a agreement, that is beneficial to both, but they keep their sovereignty to address their own needs, and are not ruled by corporations. everyone gets a seat at the table. something that is not happening now.

> > instead you are trying to ram a system down our throats that is a failure, producing millions of losers, destroying whole countries, sending the world into deflation, no one is winning but a few, hardly the stuff smart people do.
> >
>
> Smart people look after themselves.
>

they do not even do that. you just said something that is not smart, and its why there are no meritocracies. here is what adam smith said about that,

httpadam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable


"It is but equity...that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged."-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776


://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-economics.htm



"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm this order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the produce, than three times an equal number of artizans, who, under their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building."
-- Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

[And here is what Adam Smith thought about labor unions:]

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is, unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual price."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"....Adam Smith—one of the founders of modern economics—recognized clearly that a poor distribution of wealth could undermine the free market system, noting that: “The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”



ricardo was a banker, who wanted higher profits. he was the main driver behind the scam known as free trade. he came up with the so called theory, its really not a theory, a theory has to have some basis in science, free trade has none, to drive wages so low, starvation would ensue. which it has all over the world. because there is way more labor, than jobs.
so like you, ricardo was just looking out for himself, he was showing merit. but free trade has backfired and failed twice now in the past, leading to devastating wars and depressions, just like now, some meritocracy you guys are building.
the best way to increase wages in any country, is for that country to address their own needs, instead of producing cheap goods that cheap labor cannot consume, someone else has to, and then that someone else gets thrown out of work, and the nasty downwards spiral begins.

the creator of the crank theory free trade, advocated for the starvation of workers: The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap: For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families.  People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal.



http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158


The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
William R. Hawkins
Sunday, July 18, 2004

On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact.  Though the monthly  deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year.  Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition.  At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.  

Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination.  For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March,  Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent.  Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced.  Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation, American manufacturing exports, which dropped by $131.6 billion (19.1 percent).

The combined effect of higher imports and lower exports was a trade deficit in manufactured goods that was a staggering $469.5 billion in 2003.  Only someone completely blinded by ivory tower theory could fail to see how such a swing could harm the U.S. economy.  But then what can be expected from someone who has argued that the true value of the World Trade Organization is not that it opens overseas markets to American exports (that support American jobs), but that it keeps the U.S. market open to foreign producers (who employ foreign workers).

More and more, defenders of the trade deficit are citing how  cheap imports  benefit consumers since they have clearly lost the argument about jobs.  This is not, however,  a new argument.  Indeed, it goes back to the very first debates over trade policy in the 19th century.  It was then called the  cheap bread  argument because bread was literally the main staple in working-class diets.  The basic claim was that cheap imported grain was a substitute for higher wages, but the setting of the argument was even more ominous.  

David Ricardo (1772-1823), an English banker and member of Parliament, is best known for the economic theory of comparative advantage in international trade.  But he also authored the  iron law of wages  theory in 1817, which held that wages  naturally  tended towards a minimum level corresponding to the subsistence needs of the workers.   The power of the labourer to support himself, and the family which may be necessary to keep up the number of labourers, does not depend on the quantity of money which he may receive for wages, but on the quantity of food, necessaries, and conveniences become essential to him from habit, which that money will purchase.  The natural price of labour, therefore, depends on the price of the food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the labourer and his family.  With a rise in the price of food and necessaries, the natural price of labour will rise; with the fall in their price, the natural price of labour will fall.  

In other words, workers need a certain amount of consumer goods to survive and raise the next generation of workers.  They cannot expect to earn more than this subsistence level.  It is in the interest of employers to keep the cost of living down, so that wages can also be kept low.  As Ricardo noted,   A rise of wages, from the circumstance of the labourer being more liberally rewarded, or from a difficulty of procuring the necessaries on which wages are expended, does not, except in some instances, produce the effect of raising price, but has a great effect in lowering profits.  

The value of trade then is not to the worker, who cannot expect his living standards to rise above their  natural  low level, but to the employer and factory owner who make a profit from the difference between what is paid in wages and what is earned from the sale of products.  There was no notion in Ricardo that workers would increase their real wages as their productivity increased.  They would  earn their keep  but nothing more.  Increased productivity was the result of capital investment in new technology, and the higher profits would go to the owners of these improved  means of production.  This is very much what has been seen today, as productivity and profits have been soaring, but real wages have been stagnant at best and falling in many industries.  

In is thus not surprising that the first great  free trade  movement in England was that of the  Anti-Corn Law League  led by firebrand Richard Cobden in the decades following Ricardo s  iron law of wages.   The Corn Laws created a system of protectionism for British farmers.  The Anti-Corn Law argument was that food prices would be lower if England opened itself up to foreign grain imports.  And if food prices dropped, so could wages and British industry would be more competitive.

There were other arguments made as well.  For example, it was said that foreigners needed to sell agricultural goods in England to earn the money needed to buy British manufactured goods.  A modern version of this argument is now being used in support of the campaign to cut U.S. farm support programs and open the American market for agricultural imports from Latin America and elsewhere.  The problem with the argument today is that the United States  is already running a trade deficit that provides foreigners with more than enough money to buy American goods –  they just are not buying.

The view that workers were merely a factor of production, just another commodity, with no more chance of improving their condition than does a ton of pig iron or a pair of boots, was a major factor in the rise of anti-capitalist movements of which Marxist socialism became the leading doctrine.  The socialists did not add anything new to economic theory.  They accepted the dismal science of classical economics, but rejected as unacceptable its consequences.  

Ricardo held that  like all other contracts, wages should be left to the fair and free competition of the market, and should never be controlled by the interference of the legislature.  But it was this very  interference  that allowed the United States to escape the Ricardian trap.  The great success story of America is the transformation of the working class into the middle class.  Trade protectionism kept the demand for labor higher and the supply of labor lower than the  natural  order favored by the classical economists.  The result was higher real incomes, as the creation of a mass market of affluent workers supported the advancement of industrial science and growing productivity.  Unions and professionals were able to bargain for their share of the higher profits.  America became the envy of the world.  Higher incomes are always preferable to lower prices because they impart more control to the wage-earner over how his money will be spent, or saved.  

Now, the return to prominence of classical theory in the service of transnational corporations has branded the achievements of American society as commercial liabilities, harming the competitiveness of American industry in the face of underdeveloped societies where Ricardo s  iron law  still rules and workers receive the barest subsistence.  Ricardo is very clear about what happens when  the number of labourers is increased, wages again fall to their natural price, and indeed from a reaction sometimes fall below it.  When the market price of labour is below its natural price, the condition of the labourers is most wretched: then poverty deprives them of those comforts which custom renders absolute necessaries.  It is only after their privations have reduced their number, or the demand for labour has increased, that the market price of labour will rise to its natural price, and that the labourer will have the moderate comforts which the natural rate of wages will afford.  

For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families.  People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal.  Today, the increase in the labor supply in the United States is not from domestic overpopulation, but from the mass surge of foreign populations into the global labor pool.  The way to restore a favorable balance for the American middle class employee is to cut the foreign workers out of the U.S. market.  Nations progress by improving their own means of production and boosting incomes, not from the  consumption of cheap imported goods that boosts production somewhere else.

[Bret Cahill]

> > who knows not a thing about how capitalism works.

> I know enough to have founded and led several large businesses.

You would thrive under Henry George's fiscal policies, namely, taxing land at full rental value.

[nickname unavailable]

the fact of the matter is, singapore has never been a shining example of the free market, its always relied on strong government intervention, and has relied on others to consume what it produces, so its failing as the worlds free trade economy is failing

the only way out of this is sovereignty, and a rise in wages, coupled with internal production and consumption. then we can have bilateral trade, which is beneficial to both parities.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-woes-dent-singapore-exports-030359546.html


China woes dent Singapore exports, more stimulus may be needed
July 17, 2016
By Jongwoo Cheon
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's exports skidded in June as shipments to China and Europe continued to contract, suggesting the trade-reliant economy may need more stimulus to support a fragile recovery in the face of weak global demand and concerns over Brexit.
The affluent city-state's economy grew slower-than-expected in the second quarter as underlying weakness in its key financial services industry added to the pressure on output from a depressed manufacturing sector.
Non-oil domestic exports (NODX) fell 2.3 percent last month from a year earlier, the trade agency International Enterprise Singapore said in a statement on Monday.
That was slightly better than the median forecast of a 3.0 percent fall in a Reuters poll, but partially unwound an unexpected rise in May on gold and pharmaceuticals shipments.
Some economists say the government may need to boost fiscal stimulus in the event of more pressure on the economy.
"With MAS' policy complicated by the strength in the S$NEER, there is still space for subsequent off-budget fiscal measures should the economic outlook deteriorate further," said Weiwen Ng, an economist for ANZ in Singapore.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore manages policy by letting the Singapore dollar rise or fall against the currencies of its main trading partners based on its nominal effective exchange rate (NEER).
In April, the central bank eased policy by setting the rate of appreciation of the policy band at zero percent. But the Singapore dollar has remained strong on demand for safe-haven in emerging Asia, putting further pressure on both exports and inflation.
CHINA, EUROPE HIT
Exports to China, Singapore's top overseas market, fell 9.9 percent in June from a year earlier, compared to a 10.1 percent decline in May.
"With China's deceleration being a structural one, the lackluster NODX performance could last for a while," said Irvin Seah, senior economist for DBS Bank.
China's economy in April-June period expanded slightly faster but worries persist about the outlook in the world's second-largest economy.
Sales to the European Union slumped 5.8 percent in June on-year after a 14.0 percent contraction in May, and there are worries Brexit could further impact sales.
The International Monetary Fund earlier this month cut its euro zone growth outlook for the next two years and warned that the conditions could worsen if Britain's decision to leave the EU continues to spread turmoil in financial markets. The EU is Singapore's second-largest NODX market.
Shipments to the United States rose 5.9 percent last month from a year earlier, but that was slower than the 9.1 percent growth seen in May.