Why global warming would be good for us

[aelf]

Countries that are most affected by economic dislocation are also probably the most unable to afford transitional welfare efforts. What then?

And what about the other issues? Is unrestricted trade necessarily more beneficial for all countries in the long term?

 

[luiz]

How is unrestricted trade not the most beneficial outcome in aggregate? How can the world be better off with less trade? How is it ever a good thing when two parties are prohibited or restricted in carrying out a mutually beneficial exchange (the definition of trade)?

 

[El_Machinae]

Comparative advantage analysis shows us that this protectionism is more affordable, though, if we allow other types of trade in the meantime

Countries that are most affected by economic dislocation are also probably the most unable to afford transitional welfare efforts. What then?

Comparative advantage analysis shows us that this protectionism is more affordable, though, if we allow other types of trade in the meantime

And what about the other issues? Is unrestricted trade necessarily more beneficial for all countries in the long term?

With many caveats, yes. I mean, clearly there can be exploitative trade, especially regarding things like natural resources or when people with AKs determines the hours of the people working in factories. But, more trade is better than less trade

 

[aelf]

So you don't actually believe unrestricted trade is always more beneficial?

Well, then we agree. You might want to have a word with luiz, though.

 

[El_Machinae]

He knows that already, to assume he doesn't is just mainly a great way to set up windmills to tilt at.

 

[aelf]

I'm not so sure about that.

How is unrestricted trade not the most beneficial outcome in aggregate? How can the world be better off with less trade?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, let's apply the Principle of Charity here. You snipped out how he was defining trade. No wonder the resulting strawman was easy to disagree with.

 

[aelf]

Err, that's an awfully convenient and unrealistic definition of trade. Trade happens whether it benefits everyone or not. That's why there is the concept of externalities in mainstream economics.

You probably know this and yet choose to ignore it in order to defend a fellow free trade supporter. Talk about strawmen.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

How exactly does it ignore that?

I already said so. By not accounting for how beneficial trade is for a countries future economic development (compared to alternatives).

This notion that international trade is a struggle for top positions, as opposed to something mutually beneficial, is... I don't know, scarily German.

It is really entertaining to see you struggle with the notion that someone could say something negative about free trade.

Look - from what I have learned nations like Taiwan or South Korea used protectionism to get as rich as they are today. Because protectionism can be a pretty sweet deal to strengthen your economy if you are not ready to compete on the global market. Because if you are not ready, you might be kicked down the food chain. That the wealth pie grows doesn't change there is a food chain, btw. Just saying this in case there is some kind of confusion about it. Smelled a bit like it.

In essence: Yeah yeah trade is super-awesome blablabla... but it may be necessary to not have totally free trade but wisely directed trade if you are not up your game.
Which as I have read is a pity for some African nations who get forced to bow before the holy God of free trade.

 

[Borachio]

If it wasn't for CAP, mightn't some nations (including some in Africa) do quite well?