Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some things are black-and-white: Free trade makes people better off, and "Fair" trade makes them worse off.

So far no one has given any example how "fair trade" (less competition) makes people better off than free trade (more competition).

I describe my politics as radical centrism. I am very adamant about my opinions, but my opinion is that many issues are not best viewed as black and white. So I didn't vote in the poll. As often, the best path is a Middle Way.

In fact the debate is usually NOT between "Free Trade" and "Fair Trade" — whatever those terms really mean — but between powerful but opposing business lobbies.

Should we reject clothing from East Asia in favor of cheaper clothing from Bangladesh or Africa if we know those manufacturers get their lower prices by enslaving children?

We don't know so much about that. We don't know if they do it by "enslaving children" anymore than the East Asians do. There are "slave" children workers throughout the world, not just in Bangladesh or Africa. If you want to make sure your clothing is not produced by "enslaving children," you'd better produce your own clothing. Even in the developed countries there are "deplorable" sweatship conditions using "slave labor" of one kind or another.

In order to sort out all the "slave" operations and separate these from the non-"slave" producers, we would need to operate a police system throughout the world, sending them in to inspect every production site of any kind. We'd need an army of 50,000 inspectors examining every building where something suspicious was reported. There's no evidence that the only "slave" operations are in Bangladesh or Africa.

So the answer is that we should quit pretending to know who the bad guys are and who the good guys are, throughout the world, in every country, and instead do business with all of them, letting them control their internal practices, without presuming to impose our morality onto them. There's no evidence that this do-goodism and interventionism into those countries has made anyone better off -- not the children or other "slaves" in those countries and not anyone in our country. All we know for sure is that shutting out business with those countries -- any of them -- makes both us and them worse off. What is the point of our moralistic policing of them if we know it's only going to make both them and us worse off?

That's what Free Trade implies.

Yes, it implies that we should stop pretending to be doing good when we know we're only making things worse.


Is "slavery" nuanced and practiced in differing degrees, in different countries?

Is slavery a "gray area" that requires policing in some cases, to be restricted? OK, nothing is black-and-white, there's some evil in the world which can be policed. But we have a solution to that already, with no need for any one country to be the LONE RANGER running around the world imposing it's anti-slavery rules.

We have the United Nations which can sanction an outlaw nation and impose economic penalties onto it, with the cooperation of all member states. If the U.N. should sanction China or Bangladesh or other country for "slave" practices, and impose an embargo or boycott on that nation, the U.S. and all developed countries should cooperate and observe the embargo.

This had some success with South Africa, because there was cooperation by most member nations, and South Africa had to reform its political system in order to avoid the sanctions.

This has NOT worked when the U.S. tried to impose boycotts by itself, as a Lone Ranger policing power. So the solution to the "slavery" problem is to have the U.N. impose sanctions onto a "slave labor" nation and request cooperation from all member states. The solution is not for the U.S. by itself to prescribe which nations are criminal and impose its own independent punishments onto them.

One big advantage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was that the signatories would be forced to move toward better employee rights. (TPP was a good Obama achievement, overturned by a moronic public.)

Any trade deal which allows an increase of trade is preferable to one which continues to thwart business and thus make everyone worse off. So it would have been better to pass the Obama deal to allow an increase in trade. But total free trade without the pretense of policing those countries would be still better. There's no reason to force other countries to overpay their wage-earners out of pity for them and to thus stifle production and make everyone worse off. Imposing rules which restrict the production are not beneficial to them or us. And any artificially-high cost restricts production.

As another example of "Free Trade" cynicism, consider that in the 1990's countries like Poland were forced to stop subsidizing their film industries. And this was done in the name of diversity — :whack: — as though Polish movie-goers would otherwise be deprived of watching Disney films!

The best "free trade" is unilateral free trade where we open our market and don't try to impose conditions onto the other country. It's in their interest to not subsidize any industry, but it's not in our interest to impose that onto them or demand it or try to police it. We're made better off to practice free-market policies, no corporate welfare, and trade with every country, with our market completely open to all, without imposing anything reciprocal onto them. And some of those countries will gradually adopt the same good policies, over time, for their own good, because it's in their interest, without needing us to "teach" it to them or "enlighten" them about what's right. Including about their labor laws or how to raise their children.

I'm afraid that's the end of my rant on Free vs Fair. There's too much gray to sustain a long one-sided rant. I envy you extremists who can rant forever since everything is black or white.

The idea that we can police other countries and preach to them what their business practices should be is a black-and-white dogmatic moralistic ideology which makes us and them worse off. And it should be agreed by all that being better off is preferable to being worse off. That much is black-and-white: better off -- GOOD! / worse off -- BAD!

Why does everyone choose a higher cost of living and thus lower living standard?

The only answer is HATE. It's gut-level, instinctive, hate of employers and desperate job-seekers who are willing to work for less in order to get hired. Or hate directed at those who are more competitive because they would reduce cost, and the FAIR-trade disciple worships only the compensation to workers, with no regard for consumers who have to pay the higher cost....

Oh! Wow!! (My only response to this would be a set of emoticons, but I've not found how to include emoticons easily on this Board.)

But "fair trade" is always about forcing employers to pay more, which hurts everyone by driving up the cost, and it's about eliminating low-paying jobs for desperate job-seekers who otherwise can't get hired.

Why do these two -- employers and desperate job-seekers who can't get hired at the higher-wage level -- continually have to be the targets of "fair trade"? These 2 are always vilified and treated as the enemy, or as an evil which has to be blotted out. I'd like someone who preaches "fair trade" to explain why they want to keep stomping down on these 2 groups.

2 hated scapegoats of "fair trade"

1) The (more competitive) employers are trying to make a profit and do whatever they can to increase their production to make more profit. Why are they condemned for this? They do not inflict harm onto society by pursuing this, even though they offer low-paying jobs. The job-seekers can simply refuse to accept that job -- no one is forcing them to do it. As long as they are not forced, why do we have to condemn the employer for offering the low-paying job?

2) The (more competitive) desperate job-seekers who cannot get hired at the prescribed wage level might be willing to work for less in order to get hired somehow, somewhere, by someone. Why is this person condemned and stomped upon by the "fair trade" fanatics who insist that this person must never be hired? Why isn't it OK for this job-seeker to compete with the workers who are paid more?

Why do the "fair trade" crusaders HATE these 2? or keep wanting to stomp down on them?

The "crime" committed by both of these groups is that they are competing at a higher level of intensity, and for some reason this makes them the target of the "fair trade" polemical crusade, as if competition is somehow bad for the economy, and yet it's not. Economics has recognized that competition is good, and it's for this reason that monopoly practices are made illegal, because it reduces competition between companies.

Isn't ALL competition good? with every producer trying to outperform the other?

If it's not HATE, then what is it that makes the "fair trade" crusaders want to continually crack down on these two types of producers, neither of which is doing harm but is doing net good by reducing cost, which is a legitimate aspect of competition? When monopolies and price-fixing are made illegal, it's because they reduce competition and result in higher prices. While more competition means lower prices. So, why is there an obsession to crack down on these 2 types of producers which are both practicing competition which reduces prices and makes all consumers better off?

 

[Swammerdami]

As I say, I am a radical centrist. I saw what I thought were extremist arguments against "fair trade" and I argued for Fair. Had I seen over-simplistic arguments for "fair trade," I'd have joined you on the side of Free.

I think a country like Poland should be free — or even encouraged — to preserve their culture by subsidizing Polish art. Yet that goes against "Free Trade." Is the issue of culture preservation the petard you want to be hoisted on?

Let me close by emphasizing one fallacy. You treat The Market as some infallible God that by definition determines the unique "correct" price. Things are simply not so simple; labor prices are set much more haphazardly. The wages of an impoverished and oppressed people will be set to just slightly more than a living wage regardless of whether they're making cheap sweaters or Gucci bags.

It's written by a scholar of religion rather than a scholar of economics, but I recommend all Talksters read this brilliant article about dogmatic faith in The Market.

ETA: URL = ... ?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsf3Y-MXh6wIVEamWCh3znA-2EAAYASAAEgIblPD_BwE
What's this ridiculous 54-character code that I forgot to erase from the URL???? Can those "in-the-know" use it to discover my name, address, SSN and what I had for breakfast?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm generally a strong free trade advocate (the capitalist scum that I am!). However, free trade dosn't work as well when the supply chain is disrupted. The covid crisis has made many manufacturers like myself value dependable sources of raw materials and components. I'm willing to pay a premium for products are are near by and reliable. If anything I anticipate greater problems in the international supply chain. There's no doubt in my mind that Asia is going to become less dependable due to potential wars in the future (Taiwan and the disputed Islands).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"any number of possibilities" in Trump's "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" Paradise

"Which will it be? low-paying sweatshop job or no job at all?"

You omitted an important part of the quote:

Which'll it be? low-paying sweatshop job or no job at all?

Why not let the destitute worker decide? rather than the employer-bashing hypocrite?

You have a problem answering that?

What's wrong with letting the destitute job-seeker decide whether to take that low-paying sweatshop job?

Considering the US is a wealthy nation, you present a narrow two dimensional picture, two despicable options . . .

The US (and some other countries) did not become wealthy by pretending that all choices were easy ones, with never a need to choose between unattractive options. Choosing the lesser of unpleasant options is sometimes necessary in the gradual process toward improvement, or becoming wealthier.

. . . a narrow two dimensional picture, two despicable options where any number of possibilities exist.

But some desperate job-seekers choose the low-paying sweatshop job as the best possibility. How do you know their choice is wrong? They have searched for the other possibilities and decided this was their best option. If there's really any number of better possibilities than this, then why are they choosing this one?

Is it because they don't know Donald bring-back-the-factories Trump is offering incredible good-paying jobs to everyone? with incredible benefits, incredible health-care and pension, etc.? Are those the "any number of possibilities" you say exist but those desperate job-seekers don't know about? You're really sure all those wonderful "jobs! jobs! jobs!" are there? only pleasant choices?

If Trump's mouth and your mouth both say it, it must be so.

You should become a speech-writer for Trump and help him spread the good news about all these great "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" he's been creating, so the destitute will stop choosing a low-paying sweatshop job and instead choose their dream job in your "fair trade" workers paradise where they'll have all those better "possibilities" you and Trump are yak-yak-yakking about.

 

[DBT]

You omitted an important part of the quote:



You have a problem answering that?

What's wrong with letting the destitute job-seeker decide whether to take that low-paying sweatshop job?

Considering the US is a wealthy nation, you present a narrow two dimensional picture, two despicable options . . .

The US (and some other countries) did not become wealthy by pretending that all choices were easy ones, with never a need to choose between unattractive options. Choosing the lesser of unpleasant options is sometimes necessary in the gradual process toward improvement, or becoming wealthier.

. . . a narrow two dimensional picture, two despicable options where any number of possibilities exist.

But some desperate job-seekers choose the low-paying sweatshop job as the best possibility. How do you know their choice is wrong? They have searched for the other possibilities and decided this was their best option. If there's really any number of better possibilities than this, then why are they choosing this one?

Is it because they don't know Donald bring-back-the-factories Trump is offering incredible good-paying jobs to everyone? with incredible benefits, incredible health-care and pension, etc.? Are those the "any number of possibilities" you say exist but those desperate job-seekers don't know about? You're really sure all those wonderful "jobs! jobs! jobs!" are there? only pleasant choices?

If Trump's mouth and your mouth both say it, it must be so.

You should become a speech-writer for Trump and help him spread the good news about all these great "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" he's been creating, so the destitute will stop choosing a low-paying sweatshop job and instead choose their dream job in your "fair trade" workers paradise where they'll have all those "better possibilities" you and Trump are yak-yak-yakking about.

It is in the interest of destitute people to be taken advantage of in order for business to maximize profits? A wage race to the bottom is a benefit to people who have no negotiating power, so are to be considered fair game?

Your idea of a society or an economy is not something any reasonable person would want to see develop. The US is already too far down that road.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is in the interest of destitute people to be taken advantage of in order for business to maximize profits? A wage race to the bottom is a benefit to people who have no negotiating power, so are to be considered fair game?

Your idea of a society or an economy is not something any reasonable person would want to see develop. The US is already too far down that road.

“It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.”

FDR

 

[laughing dog]

It is pretty clear that the OP poster has no clue what free or fair trade means. Fair trade is a version of free trade: people agree buy products that meet certain standards. Businesses do this all the time when they mandate specs for their products. In fact, all trade involves either explicit specfications a product or service must meet or implicit ones (for example, not stolen).

Moreover the notion that free trade is the answer because it means lower prices for consumers means that free trade in goods produced by (literally) slave labor should be allowed.

All in all, the OP's position is driven by emotion, not reason nor reality.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Paying artificially-higher wages does not create jobs, but reduces them and reduces production = lower living standard.

Lumpy, what you fail to calculate is the other jobs that do and can come up when wages are fair.

"fair" meaning higher, or higher than necessary in order to get the work done. No, propping the wage up higher than necessary cannot cause an increase in jobs but only a decrease, because the companies have to reduce production when their cost goes up. It's a fact of business that higher cost (without improved output) must lead to reduced production.

I live in a small town with a single large employer. When those wages are fair, they enable myriad small businesses to thrive alongside. The fair wages earned by the “company jobs” enable people to eat out, now “creating jobs” for the pizza shop, the sushi bar, the nail salon, the pharmacy.

No, the higher wages do not "enable" any such thing. If there is some extra money pumped into the local economy somehow, which theoretically may happen one way or another, that doesn't make anything better happen but simply puts more money into circulation and therefore causes some inflation of the prices which would not happen otherwise. At best that inflation might have a neutral effect, as all the prices go up uniformly to absorb the extra money, and maybe everyone has 1% more dollars before but also pays 1% higher prices than before, so there's no net change.

Those higher wages produce no benefit unless they're accompanied by improved performance by the workers, or improved output by that large employer paying the higher wages. Improved performance is what produces benefit in the economy, not simply increasing the wages, or increasing any prices to get more dollars circulating around.


Only improved production creates prosperity, not an increase in wages per se.

If it were true that you could magically produce prosperity in the town by increasing some wages higher than required by supply-and-demand, with no change in the output, then what happens if you REDUCE the wages, with no change in output? Does that cause the opposite? lower prosperity, a loss to the economy? And yet this happens in some cases when high-paid workers are replaced by machines. Is that then bad for the economy?

i.e., lower wages as high-paid jobs are eliminated, but the same output continues as before.

So does the whole economy suffer when workers are replaced by machines, so that the wages or labor cost declines (less labor) -- BUT AT THE SAME OUTPUT AS BEFORE with the same work being done by machines rather than by those workers who are replaced?

(For this example, let's assume the machines are imported from China, at very low cost.)

No, that does not harm the economy. It's always good to maintain the same production but to do it at lower cost. Lowering the cost, including labor cost, while maintaining the same production level (or preferably increasing it) is always good for the economy and increases the prosperity.

Whereas the opposite, replacing the machines with humans who cost more, would then mean higher wages being paid. And would that then create "peripheral jobs" and stimulate the economy and make everyone more prosperous? Hardly. It would do the opposite.

Snake-Oil Economic theory: pay higher wages --> Sh'zam! instant prosperity! No, the function of the business is not to provide jobs and incomes to workers for them to go out and spend so other businesses in the community can thrive. That never makes any sense, despite what some charlatans teach. You never improve the economy by just giving extra money to some workers for them to go out and spend to "stimulate" the economy. That extra cost, which has to be paid by someone, always takes out of the economy whatever extra is paid to those workers, so it always puts an ANTI-stimulus into the economy to offset the supposed stimulus.

It's always good for a company to reduce its cost while maintaining the same output or production. It's the production of the company which is its contribution to the economy, not the wages it pays to the workers. Whatever it pays, to anyone, is a cost which should always be reduced, or kept low. But by the Snake-Oil Economic theory of paying higher wages to create "peripheral jobs," it would be good for the company to run up its costs artificially, without any improvement in its production. As if throwing around that extra money can magically create prosperity, and the more money you throw around for them to spend, churning out more and more dollars, the greater is the magic prosperity produced, just by those dollars increasing.

Those hocus-pocus theories ignore the reality of inflation, and also the fact that the extra money poured into circulation has to come out of the economy somewhere, being taken away from someone else who would have spent it.

If the employer does something not fair trade, like forcing all of their employees to use mail-order pharmacies, they shut down local independent businesses.

This sounds like a case of employers trying to circumvent laws forcing them to provide health insurance, or trying to reduce their health insurance cost. This is probably a different topic than "fair trade" vs. "free trade," except that pure "free trade" has to allow employers to opt out of this obligation, so they can focus their business on their product for consumers rather than on babysitting the workers. If "fair trade" means forcing them to worry about health insurance for the workers rather than serving consumers, this is another example where "free trade" is better than "fair trade," because it's better to not unnecessarily drive up the cost of business.

Your claim that if there are fewer jobs but they pay better = fewer overall jobs, ignores the reality of the peripheral jobs created by the good paying core jobs.

No, there's no "peripheral jobs" created by overpaying the workers in the "good-paying core jobs." By forcing up the cost of these "core" jobs -- higher than necessary to get that work done -- you force the company to reduce the workers it hires and to reduce the production. Higher cost has to mean reduced production and fewer workers hired. So that artificially-high wage level results in less production and fewer workers in those "core" jobs.

Fewer workers means fewer peripheral jobs created by them, and the reduced production means less supply (of the company's product) and higher price to consumers. Those negatives offset any extra "peripheral jobs" created by the higher-paid "core" jobs.

It never makes any good sense, for the company or for the society, to have the company pay higher than is necessary to get the production done. All cost savings is good, not only for the company, but also for consumers, who must pay higher prices if the production cost is artificially high. The company's contribution to society is not the jobs and incomes it provides to workers, but the product it provides to consumers. Anything detrimental to the production to serve consumer demand can only make everyone worse off, not better, regardless of claims that it might "create" jobs for someone if the company's production cost is driven up artificially high. Anything good which could come from the artificially-high cost is necessarily offset by something bad which results from it.

Another example of this is when municipalities or counties give unfair advantage to some big box store to come in, . . .

What's "unfair"? If it's corporate welfare in some form, then that's not "free trade." E.g., when the government gives special subsidies or tax exemption to attract the company, to "create jobs" and "stimulate" the economy, that's not "free trade" but corporate welfare.

. . . give an unfair advantage to some big box store to come in, and it drives out the independent businesses that used to thrive there.

All that it drives out are the less competitive businesses. There are some other businesses, more competitive, which benefit from the large store moving in. The consumers always benefit from the increased competition, as long as it's really competitive and not corporate welfare.

Many dozens of stories of this are clearly extant in the USA.

Business as usual. Local governments generally control it to minimize the disruptions and keep the shopping districts stable, to the benefit of consumers.

Most of the ones "driven out" were uncompetitive. But the ones which were competitive could relocate and still survive. It's OK for the local government to use zoning to control where the big box stores are allowed. All that matters is what's good for consumers.

Fair trade thrives until free trade moves in, taking the sweatshop labor of foreign countries and disrupting the previously working local economy.

In virtually all cases the consumers are the winners. It's OK for the less competitive operators to be disrupted. The foreign imports are good for the economy. Trying to exclude competition from foreigners and immigrant labor ends up making everyone worse off. A genuine "working" economy is one which best serves the consumers, not one which protects someone from having to compete, or excludes the aliens or outsiders or others who "don't belong" here (or whose "junk" doesn't belong here).

Free trade creates wider income disparity and it is bad for humanity.

The disparity per se is not bad. Many factors can create income disparity. Isn't it good for a tinkerer to get rich from an invention which improves people's lives? He then becomes unequally richer than others, but it's due to something which made others better off. So they're made a little better off, while the inventor is made a lot better off, and so the income disparity increases as a result. What's wrong with that?

So "wider income disparity" per se is not inherently bad, but is good in some cases. Probably most cases. But where it's bad, it's not due to free trade, but more often to some form of corporate welfare, or something opposite to free trade.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"fair" meaning higher, or higher than necessary in order to get the work done. No, propping the wage up higher than necessary cannot cause an increase in jobs but only a decrease, because the companies have to reduce production when their cost goes up. It's a fact of business that higher cost (without improved output) must lead to reduced production.

You still haven't addressed my point that "free" trade often isn't free trade at the level of the producer.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Giving people free choice does not make them worse off -- and so is best for society, the world, humanity.

What will it be, slavery or starvation? Let the destitute worker decide!

When you leverage an imbalance of power, this is where that calculus inevitably drives you to.

Either you can admit that you have a need for (one human), and you need to pay at the bare minimum the upkeep costs for that, or admit that you think humans are "disposable".

When you impose a wage that is too high, you are treating humans as "disposable" as much as the employer who pays a low wage. You impose damage onto the economy, onto people, when you force employers to pay higher than the market wage. You're doing injury to thousands or millions of consumers and workers who are made worse off by your imposing that artificially-high wage. All those who are injured, made worse off, are being "disposed" of by you, discounting them as nonentities.

Who decides what the "upkeep costs" are? No one can dictate someone else's "upkeep" cost and dictate that they aren't allowed to work because the "upkeep" cost is not covered. It's up to each individual worker to judge what their "upkeep" cost is. If they think the wage to be paid is not enough to cover it, then they reject the job. For you to overrule their judgment and insist that they may not work at that wage level is to "dispose" of people's lives who are made worse off by that arbitrary judgment. A better result for society overall is to let each producer/worker make the judgment what is their "upkeep" cost, so that this protects each individual producer/worker while also insuring the maximum production level for society, for everyone's interest.

It's not the employers' obligation to determine the workers' "upkeep costs" -- the individual worker decides that, and the employers offer what they think gets them the best deal, maybe choosing the lowest bidder if they have difficulty meeting their costs and staying in business. Each employer has a judgment call to make, to decide if that lower price might mean lower-quality performance by that worker -- sometimes it might be better to pay a higher price -- so the individual employer decides. Each individual is the best judge of what is in their interest. We get an overall worse result for all society when an individual's judgment (who to work for, how much to pay or be paid, etc.) is overruled by someone else who dictates to them what's in their individual interest.

At some point we need to recognize that the only difference between wage slavery and chattel slavery is presence of an abstraction of some fraction of material provisions to money, and . . .

No, in some cases the "slave" might be a volunteer who works for free, and so receives nothing at all. Even working for free, zero $$$ per day (hour), is a "free choice" by the worker and is not slavery. And there are such volunteer workers, and they are not slaves, because they are free to quit if they choose. As long as you're free to quit, you are not a slave, no matter how low the wage is, even if it's zero.

After emancipation in the South, in cases where a former slave chose to remain on the plantation and work the same as before, they then stopped being a "slave" any longer -- even though the conditions remained the same. The only difference is that now they had the free choice to quit that job, so they became FREE as a result of the law changing, giving them that free choice.

. . . only difference between wage slavery and chattel slavery is presence of an abstraction of some fraction of material provisions to money, and the "freedom" to decide which abuser abuses you.

We're all abusing each other and being abused every day.

In all transactions, each side is abusing the other, agreeing to some terms, like payment, in return for being allowed to "abuse" the other side. When you hire a plumber to go down into your poop-filled pipes to clear out the mess, you are "abusing" that poor sap, but it's allowed because you agree to pay a price for it, like reparations, or like damages paid to someone who sues you.

That's why a taxi customer sometimes says to the driver: "OK, what's the damage?" That driver has to put up with some shit in order to be able to provide the service, and so the customer almost feels guilty, or even is "guilty" in a sense, and has to pay something to compensate the driver for all the crap he has to put up with -- even help make up for some other customers who jumped out and ran off.

But the same is true for ALL producers/workers of any kind who are paid. Of course some have an easier job than others, but ALL of them are "abused" by the buyer/customer who is making demands on them. And the customer too is "abused" by the seller/producer who sometimes charges too much, or charges arbitrarily, or requires some conditions, or doesn't work at the most convenient hours, or doesn't get the work done as soon as he should, and so on. There's plenty of gripes on each side.

Both sides are partly mistreated in the deal, in one way or another, because usually the transaction leaves them partly disappointed with the result. Often either one might have gotten off better, at less cost, or less inconvenience if they had dealt with someone else. At the beginning of every transaction there's doubt about whether this will be worth it, because so many things can go wrong. And usually each side does less than it could do for the other side's benefit. Each side is out to get something out of the other and puts its own interest first, even if that means the other side might get shafted.

In this thread Lumpy has frequently ignored that the asymmetry here is clearly the same asymmetry that underpins other clear ethical violations.

"asymmetry" -- what's that? The latest conspiracy theory?

If something unethical is happening, it's not the "asymmetry" but the harm done to someone, or making them worse off, in the transaction. There are literally BILLIONS of poor -- very poor asymmetrical downtrodden suffering victims -- who deal with the super-rich and are made better off by the deal. Some have very low-wage jobs, etc., and are made better off by having that job, and would be worse off otherwise. That deal between the abject poor and those super-rich tycoons paying them $1/day or whatever is a deal which makes those poor people a little less poor, and so it's good for society and makes the world a little better off.

So it's not true that the asymmetry "underpins" anything bad going on, or violations making the world worse off. What's wrong with those "violations" or those bad things is not the asymmetry but the bad results produced which make someone worse off. You have to show that someone was made worse off and stop obsessing on the asymmetry. Prove that those poor persons are made worse off by having that low-wage job -- because it reduces their standard of living -- and then you've shown something wrong about it. Stop imagining that the asymmetry per se is something bad. It's not a bad deal just because there's asymmetry happening. For it to be bad for humans it has to make them worse off.

Even reducing inequality might be legitimate, but not if it means making everyone worse off, both rich and poor. And it makes everyone worse off to disallow desperate job-seekers to choose a low-wage job, despite your delusion of being the Lone Ranger rescuing them from the bad guys.

The world's poor, virtually everywhere, would be far worse off if they were not allowed to work for the super-rich, at low wages, in those sweatshops, etc. Prohibiting this would probably have caused most of the poor to perish centuries ago. Demanding an end to low-wage labor is basically a formula for exterminating most of the poor, not for saving them from the greedy capitalist pigs. Demanding an end to it in reality might be a cunning strategy to exterminate the poor masses, making it impossible for most of them to survive.

Then they call anyone who doesn't do what is clearly unethical foolish.

What's "unethical" about making people better off? How is it unethical to pay a Mexican autoworker only $14/hour, instead of $16 (as Trump says they must be paid in order for it to be "fair"), when paying only $14 means companies can hire more of them and get more cars produced, which are just as good, to be sold at a lower price, thus making millions of consumers better off? plus making better off those extra workers hired at the lower wage level?

What's wrong with calling that artificially-high wage foolish when it makes virtually everyone worse off and benefits at most only a handful of workers who would survive just fine at $14/hour?

Why do you want to call something unethical which produces the greater good for the greater number?

The only difference is that Lumpy is not currently in a position to be bent over the barrel. They . . .

You don't know what barrels Lumpy isn't bent over.

They don't think it can happen to them, so apparently it's not wrong.

It can happen to anyone, depending on the future, and everyone should be free to choose, to best control what will happen to them.

The "it" you're talking about is something good for everyone, including those it doesn't happen to directly. It's best for everyone to be left free to make their own choice whether to take a dirty job. We're all better off if everyone is given that choice, rather than having it dictated to us. If you're desperate and need to take an unpleasant job, it's best for everyone if you're left free to make that choice, without someone else dictating the choice to you, and shutting down those jobs so you can't work at all.

Might makes right is not an ethical philosophy, . . .

"Might" has nothing to do with it when people are left free to make their own choices, as in free trade = free individual choice, and therefore no might being exercised against anyone. A rich tycoon hiring a gardener for $1/day is not exercising "might" over him if he's free to take the job or refuse it.

. . . not an ethical philosophy, and just because you can doesn't mean you should.

No, but you should if it's what you want to do -- i.e., if it's what you want then you "should" do it. It's not right because YOU CAN do it -- rather, it's right because it's what YOU WANT -- and, of course, it's also right because there's nothing wrong with it. What is wrong, or SHOULD NOT be, is to make people worse off, which you usually do when you dictate choices to them instead of letting them make their own free choice.

"Might makes right" = Fair trade = dictating to people how much they must be paid, instead of

Free choice = Free trade = leaving people free as individuals to make their own choices.

 

[DBT]

Workers without bargaining power have very little choice: 'that's our rate, take it or leave it.'

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Trump Devotee recites the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" chant.

And "factories! factories! factories!"

Hmm. I kinda feel like Lumpy has missed the core concept that both Free Trade and Fair Trade agreements are agreements relating to international trade. Free Trade produces lower costs to the consumer... but it also results in a lot of business ventures being moved to foreign countries, . . .

Which is good -- despite Trump's preaching -- because they do it to save on costs = more efficient = lower cost of production = lower prices to all consumers = more prosperity. This shows that "free trade" leads to higher living standard for all, while "fair trade" restricts them from relocating as needed to save on costs, and so imposes higher costs onto them = higher prices = lower living standard for all.

. . . business ventures being moved to foreign countries, especially ones that don't pay reasonable wages to their employees and . . .

Just because you have a religion dictating the wage level doesn't mean a different level cannot be "reasonable." You can choose for yourself what wage to work for, but to dogmatically impose your choice on to others does not make it a "reasonable wage" everyone else has to conform to. There's nothing "reasonable" about imposing unnecessarily higher cost onto the company = higher prices = lower living standard. What is "reasonable" about a lower living standard to all consumers?

The only "reasonable" wage is whatever is agreed to by both the worker and employer. There are a few cases where it's the employer who is desperate, having to pay exorbitantly high (not "reasonable"?), such as the case of a celebrity actor or athlete or late-night talk show host -- but even so, it's a free choice by the employer, even though the talented performer has so much bargaining power. The huge discrepancy in bargaining power of one side over the other does not make it anything other than a free choice and reasonable wage as long as both parties agree to it because it's the best deal they can get, and they'd rather settle on that figure than have no deal at all. That fact makes it a free choice on both sides, and "reasonable" by any objective standard. It's only by your religious intuitions/feelings -- nothing else -- that you judge it as not "reasonable."

Dogmatically imposing onto others what you prescribe as a "reasonable" wage is just as intolerant and bigoted as imposing your religious doctrines onto them. It's not based on economics or science or reason, but on gut-level instinct only.

. . . don't pay reasonable wages to their employees and effectively run sweat shops.

A sweat shop is better than no shop. It's reasonable, it's free, it makes everyone better off. You have nothing to show that the so-called "sweat shop" makes people worse off. If that "sweat shop" didn't exist, everyone would be worse off. You can't name anyone made worse off by that "sweat shop." You have no alternative to offer those workers. All your complaining about it is noise only. Just because you can preach hypocritical sermons about it and pretend to be morally superior to those capitalists doesn't make those workers any better off. When you're done screwing with them, they are worse off, not better. You have no evidence, no facts, to show otherwise.

This in turn also reduces the availability of jobs in the US.

So does automation. When you replace workers with machines which do the job cheaper, you eliminate jobs in the U.S. But the fact remains that the economy overall is made better -- i.e., PEOPLE are made better off as a result of the improved production from the machines which replaced those workers. And the same is true when lower-paid workers replace higher-paid workers: there is a cost savings which benefits the economy. If it's not so, then you must also be against automation -- or most automation -- which also eliminates jobs while improving the production, making it less costly.

The displaced workers must retrain or improve themselves to serve a different role in the economy after they have been replaced. Overall it's better for them to be replaced, because the whole economy is made better, regardless of displacing workers, some of whom are made worse off at the time. Yet all of them are really made better off long-term by the improved production. There is no one today who is not benefiting from the improved production introduced 50 years ago, even though some workers back then were made worse off when they were replaced. It's better for the whole economy, or for the whole nation, that they were replaced.

Fair Trade results in higher end costs for consumers, but it counters the tendency to off shore production . . .

And thus makes the economy worse, not better. That uncompetitive production should be off shored if it can be made more competitive in the foreign country. To prevent companies from improving their production, by offshoring it or in any other way, makes everyone worse off. Reducing the company's performance hurts everyone. The company's function is to serve consumers with better production, not provide "jobs" (babysitting slots) to crybabies. Turning companies into babysitting centers for jobless riff-raff does not benefit the economy overall, but makes it worse.

. . . counters the tendency to off shore production and helps (but doesn't guarantee) that production and manufacturing jobs are available in the US as well.

We don't need to increase the jobs per se or factories per se, for their own sake, regardless of market demand. There are greater needs than for factories. It's better to put those job-seekers into something where they're needed (like firefighting?), rather than into factory jobs which are done at a fraction of the cost in Asia or Central America etc.

There is plenty of production and manufacturing in the US as needed to serve consumers, without adding artificial factories. It does not matter where the production takes place, but only that it happens efficiently and reliably to benefit consumers. There's no need to increase the factories in the U.S. other than what's efficient to serve the consumers, not to provide extra babysitting slots for the unemployed. That's not what factories are for.

What needs to be "available in the US" are the products. And free trade insures this, to the optimum level to satisfy the consumer demand. It's not the "factories! factories! factories!" we need, or the "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" for crybabies. What we need are the products from the factories, produced wherever it's most efficient, by whatever means, to meet the need.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

Yes, you've been drinking Donald Trump's "jobs! jobs! jobs!" Kool-Aid. He and other Snake-Oil Economics Gurus have programmed you into worshiping the factories, as a religion, and you just repeat the same dogmas he and Bernie Sanders have been preaching, from rote, without having any ability to question it. It's just your "understanding" of it, as you've been programmed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's delusional to replace the competitive market price with a "fair trade" price.

There's no evidence that "fair trade" wages or prices ever made the economy better. In all cases it makes the economy worse, reducing the living standard overall.

Much of the discussion here relates to Income Inequality, an important topic on which progressive economists like Piketty and Stiglitz have written extensively. Here are three reasons this issue becomes complicated:

• Markets need to be supplemented by explicit government action, e.g. following ideas like Andrew Yang's.

You can make arguments for some of those actions, or ideas. But nothing about it is any reason to dictate the wage level to employers, and shutting down some production because the wage level is too low, or imposing a wage higher than market level = higher cost = reduced production and fewer jobs.

• A policy like moving factories overseas might increase inequality domestically while reducing it internationally.

Increased inequality does not matter if the cause of it is competition in the market = more and better production. The improved production makes the living standard higher generally, regardless if there's an increasing gap between rich and poor. Such a wider gap is not bad if the overall living standard is made higher as a result of the improved production.

Some increased taxes on the rich might be legitimate, but not forcing employers to pay wages higher than the market value of the labor. Forcing anyone to pay different than the competitive market wage or price always makes the living standard worse overall, for the whole population, regardless of individual benefit to certain buyers or sellers. It's best for society overall to let supply-and-demand set the price for anything, including for labor. It's only a delusion that you make conditions better by intervening to force any price higher or lower than the market level. There's no empirical evidence that it ever makes conditions better overall.

There are at least a few cases of evidence that it made conditions worse.

(Maybe only one -- the attempt to increase the minimum wage in Samoa, which was proven later to have been a mistake which hurt the economy. This is at least one proven case of a higher-than-market wage doing damage, but there are probably a few others -- but there is no definite case of evidence proving that the economy was made better by minimum wage or any other "fair trade" measure to artificially force up or down the price for anything.)

Does compassion stop at our borders?

The only "compassion" which makes any sense is for the consumers generally, or the whole nation, which is made worse off if prices for anything are forced up or down rather than letting the market determine these according to supply-and-demand. Any other "compassion" really ends up doing more harm than good.

Trying to impose "compassion" onto buyers and sellers would be fine if it actually produced the intended beneficial results. But it does not. It's the market which produces the best results.

• The wages of groups with no bargaining power will tend to fall to the minimum wage necessary for survival.

It could even go LOWER than that level (whatever "minimum wage necessary for survival" means). Even so, forcing up the wage level above the market level makes it worse. It hurts production, making the whole society worse off. The worker is better off working at that low wage level than having no job at all, if they choose to take that job. The individual worker can best make that judgment. No one else can make that decision better than the individual worker. What is "minimum wage necessary" for one worker is not the same as for another. No outsider other than the buyer (employer) and seller (worker) is better able to decide this, or set the proper price (which a buyer pays to the seller). For anything.

The third point applies most obviously to exploited colonies and some autocracies.

If outside power is imposed to force anyone to work against their will, then it's not "free trade." "Force" takes different forms, and also it's not "free" if there is fraud committed. So some cases of tyranny or imperialism are not "free trade" because some of the participants are denied their free choice, or are defrauded. But as long as the buyers or sellers (or workers) are choosing freely to do a job offered to them at the low wage, then the best outcome is whatever they choose, not anything dictated by "fair trade" dogmatists interfering from the outside.

But, given the high cost of living in the U.S., I wonder if unskilled wages in the U.S., at least for single mothers, are barely above subsistence level.

Probably they are BELOW "subsistence" in some cases, but if they're free to make their own choice, that's the best possibility.

There are possible legitimate ways to improve conditions for some marginal groups, but there's no overall improvement in society by artificially forcing up the wage or forcing any price higher or lower than the market level, regardless of the emotional or sentimental urge to interfere, which just makes it worse overall. You can benefit any individual by doing something for them at the expense of others, but it always makes those others worse off who have to suffer the negative cost of it.

The best result for society is produced by having the price set by supply-and-demand, whereas driving the price up or down from that price always makes it worse overall, despite the good intention of the "fair trade" crusader imposing the artificially higher/lower price.


Qualifier: None of the above applies to cases where "fair trade" means an artificially-higher price in order to pay for environmental damage. Also you could include something like copyright violations (stealing intellectual property) as "unfair trade" etc. But the meaning understood here (of "fair trade") is that of protecting the interest of individual buyers or sellers in the market who are thought to be cheated in the transaction because of the harsh conditions of competition, driving the price to an "unfair" level for the particular buyer/seller. But as long as the buyer/seller agrees to the price, it has to be best for the whole economy and does not cheat them, because all buyers/sellers have to know what's in their interest, and are free to choose the price, so there cannot be any need for an outsider (e.g., "fair trade" crusader) to overrule their choice.

 

[DBT]

Collective bargaining provides a boost to worker wages and conditions.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's no evidence that "fair trade" wages or prices ever made the economy better. In all cases it makes the economy worse, reducing the living standard overall.

Well, when you refuse to look at it and acknowledge it...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

You're no benefit to society unless you're paid union wages and spend it all -- otherwise your work is worthless.

But if you're well-paid to twiddle your thumbs, you're a benefit to the economy. It's not your work but being paid well and spending money that's a social benefit. Sure. Snake-Oil Economics 1A

Having a significant percentage of poorly paid workers does not benefit society or the economy.

So, low-paid workers are worthless (no "benefit") to society? including low-paid independent contractors? low-paid street vendors are worthless? low-paid firefighters are worthless to society? like the firefighters in California -- they're worthless?

Poor countries have a "significant percentage of poorly-paid workers," so all those low-paid workers in those countries are worthless?

What about volunteer workers who are paid nothing -- they're worthless? All volunteers are worthless? Whereas if the organizations they work for would pay them $20/hour (= "fair trade"), then their work would become beneficial to society? So to make volunteer work "fair" and beneficial to society, you'd make it illegal for them to work unless they're paid union-level wages?

Because FAIR TRADE condemns all "poorly paid" work (= volunteer work) as non-beneficial and bad for the economy, and no work done at all is preferable to "poorly paid" work.

Well paid workers have spending power, they buy the goods and pay for services . . .

What about the workers who don't, but save their money -- they're worthless? You would require them to spend all their money rather than save it? because their work is worthless unless they spend all their money on goods and services needing to be bought?

. . . they buy the goods and pay for services with money they would not otherwise have.

Bankrobbers also do that. They buy goods and services with money which they otherwise would not have. So you want our bankrobbers to be well-paid, so they'll have money to buy those goods and services that need to be bought?

What you overlook is a balance between production cost and price.

The correct relation is: Higher wages (for the same worker performance/output) = higher production cost = higher price to consumers = lower living standard.

It's not always about maximizing profit for those at the top of the heap.

What it's about is maximizing reward to good-performing producers (at the top or bottom or middle) = rewarding the more competitive = maximum production for consumers (including lower prices they pay) = higher living standard for all (even if some "at the top" make more profit as a result) = a better economy/society/nation.

That's what it's about, not about paying more to uncompetitive crybabies just so they'll have more to spend. It's about the work done, not about the money spent by the worker.

You overlook the gross imbalance in wealth between those at the top and everyone else.

As long as "those at the top" earned it by being more competitive and productive through better performance, then the resulting imbalance is good for society. Those who perform better and produce more should have more than those who are less productive.

You have to distinguish between "those at the top" who earned it by better performance vs. "those at the top" who acquired it by corporate welfare or Trump's latest "fair trade" fraud or other scheme to rig the system or foist a hoax onto the idiot masses.

 

[DBT]

But if you're well-paid to twiddle your thumbs, you're a benefit to the economy. It's not your work but being paid well and spending money that's a social benefit. Sure. Snake-Oil Economics 1A





So, low-paid workers are worthless (no "benefit") to society? including low-paid independent contractors? low-paid street vendors are worthless? low-paid firefighters are worthless to society? like the firefighters in California -- they're worthless?

Poor countries have a "significant percentage of poorly-paid workers," so all those low-paid workers in those countries are worthless?

What about volunteer workers who are paid nothing -- they're worthless? All volunteers are worthless? Whereas if the organizations they work for would pay them $20/hour (= "fair trade"), then their work would become beneficial to society? So to make volunteer work "fair" and beneficial to society, you'd make it illegal for them to work unless they're paid union-level wages?

Because FAIR TRADE condemns all "poorly paid" work (= volunteer work) as non-beneficial and bad for the economy, and no work done at all is preferable to "poorly paid" work.




What about the workers who don't, but save their money -- they're worthless? You would require them to spend all their money rather than save it? because their work is worthless unless they spend all their money on goods and services needing to be bought?

. . . they buy the goods and pay for services with money they would not otherwise have.

Bankrobbers also do that. They buy goods and services with money which they otherwise would not have. So you want our bankrobbers to be well-paid, so they'll have money to buy those goods and services that need to be bought?

What you overlook is a balance between production cost and price.

The correct relation is: Higher wages (for the same worker performance/output) = higher production cost = higher price to consumers = lower living standard.

It's not always about maximizing profit for those at the top of the heap.

What it's about is maximizing reward to good-performing producers (at the top or bottom or middle) = rewarding the more competitive = maximum production for consumers (including lower prices they pay) = higher living standard for all (even if some "at the top" make more profit as a result) = a better economy/society/nation.

That's what it's about, not about paying more to uncompetitive crybabies just so they'll have more to spend. It's about the work done, not about the money spent by the worker.

You overlook the gross imbalance in wealth between those at the top and everyone else.

As long as "those at the top" earned it by being more competitive and productive through better performance, then the resulting imbalance is good for society. Those who perform better and produce more should have more than those who are less productive.

You have to distinguish between "those at the top" who earned it by better performance vs. "those at the top" who acquired it by corporate welfare or Trump's latest "fair trade" fraud or other scheme to rig the system or foist a hoax onto the idiot masses.

Poorly paid workers may help boost corporate profits, but with limited disposable income they cannot spare money for a wider range of goods and services, consequently their incomes don't add as much to the economy at large as it could if they were better paid.

I'm sure you realize this. Perhaps it just doesn't suit your ideology to have a thriving economy where everyone benefits to fair and reasonable degree. You prefer to favour the rich at the expense of ordinary workers.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's not FAIR if it makes people worse off rather than better off.

Artificially driving up wages or any other price makes people worse off overall, despite the popular knee-jerk Marxist hate language.

Fair trade is complete bullshit. It's not fair. It's always unfair. Free trade is always the fair price. The market is clever that way.

The higher price may depend on the exporting country's policies. It might include costs to avoid pollution, while the cheaper manufacturer poisons nearby ground-water.

"might"? Anything MIGHT be. There's plenty of pollution of ground-water in the U.S. and other developed countries. Maybe all U.S. products should be boycotted or banned because of possible pollution.

In that case "fair trade" means no one should ever buy anything, not even domestic-produced. You have to produce all your own products, never buy anything, because you can never be sure that the manufacturer of it didn't pollute in order to produce it. Everything you buy at the store could have been produced by polluting something, or committing some other crime. All you can be sure of is what you produced yourself. You can't believe government agencies which claim they inspected -- too often the regulators are bribed by the companies they regulate. So "fair trade" has to mean NO TRADE, because the buyer can't ever be sure the production process was honest and clean.

We know the price of foreign steel is lower mainly because of the lower labor cost. But if you want to imagine that other countries commit crimes in order to save on costs, then you can just as easily imagine that the domestic industries also commit those crimes. So ALL TRADE MUST BE BANNED, even domestic trade, in order to make sure you're not buying something from a polluter.


The U.S. alone is not competent to judge who is polluting and who is not, and prescribe punishment to offenders. We don't know that China pollutes any more than American chicken and pig farms which pollute the ground water. Just because China-bashing is popular doesn't make U.S. protectionist demagogues experts on measuring pollution levels in certain countries they are scapegoating. No one has properly measured how much pollution U.S. producers are doing compared to the Chinese producers.

If it can be shown that China is shipping tons of poisons out to the middle of the Pacific to be dumped, destroying all the islands and the western U.S. coastline, and into the South China Sea or Indian Ocean, to destroy the environment of Australia and East Africa and India, and if scientists of several countries have measured this pollution and the billions of dollars of damage and millions of lives killed every year, then there are retaliatory measures the world community can take and would have taken. A boycott or embargo is possible, in an extreme case. The boycott of S. Africa for its racist regime was successful, by most accounts. When enough countries are united to penalize an offending nation, it's possible for sanctions to work.

But there is no reason for one country (or even 2 or 3) alone to try to punish a nation alleged as criminal, and to impose its Lone Ranger sanctions or boycott on it only because its products are cheaper, speculating that it must be committing something criminal in order to keep its cost down. If there are environmental factors, the damage is 90% to the country itself which is polluting, rather than to the rest of the world, unless you have evidence of a pollutants pipeline they've extended thousands of miles out into the ocean to dump toxic material into the territory of other nations.

Air pollution in India and China etc. damages their own air far more than that of other nations, so that they have every incentive to reduce that pollution, and they are doing measures to minimize it. They benefit from keeping their cost down, but they also benefit from making their air cleaner, and it's nonsense to claim they care only about driving U.S. companies out of business and will make any sacrifice, even choke to death, to achieve that single goal, as if nothing in life matters to them except to surpass the U.S. production, or to destroy America as their purpose in life, and that they would destroy themselves and the whole planet if that's what it takes to snuff out America as the ultimate Absolute Good.

The higher price might include a carbon tax to mitigate global warming.

No one's "fair trade" program to punish certain countries is based on this, which assumes we would impose a higher tariff on imports from any country with a low gas tax. Theoretically this might be reasonable, if we have a ranking of all countries according to their gas tax (or coal tax) and impose a uniform tariff tax on each based on this measure, increasing the tariff for lower gas tax. But obviously this is not Trump's "fair trade" policy nor anyone else's.

So it's nutty to say "carbon tax to mitigate global warming" is some kind of "fair trade" guideline, or is the reason "free trade" needs to be replaced by "fair trade" as more efficient or better for the economy. This obviously has nothing to do with "fair trade" or the need to restrict trade to make it cleaner or reduce bad behavior of some nations or industries.

No, it's obvious that "fair trade" is about punishing anyone who saves on labor cost. It's always about imposing penalties on anyone who tries to improve production by achieving lower cost, including lower wage level, especially for certain high-profile wage-earners, such as factory workers. In most cases it's about forcing up the wage level for factory workers, such as in China, to the disregard for many other workers in the economy who are lower-paid than factory workers, but who are lower-profile workers and so are ignored because they have less clout with those holding political power.


"Fair trade" is mostly an obsession with factory workers and an impulse to force up wages for this sector in particular, to the disregard of other sectors of the economy. In some cases it's also about farmworkers, but here too the focus is only on certain high-profile workers who have gained attention, to the exclusion of millions/billions of others made even worse off as consumers who have to pay higher prices as a result of the "fair trade" policies to favor select workers only while driving up the prices of products everyone buys.

It's laughable to suggest that "fair trade" is about protecting the environment or reducing climate change, outside of some symbolism or rhetoric. You can find countries to complain about regarding the environment, but there are no "fair trade" political measures being done to penalize their production based on their environmental practices.

The actual political steps, such as Trump's higher tariffs (or those of Bernie Sanders if he were in charge), are only to force up the price of imports from any country (mostly 3rd-world and Asian) selling at lower prices -- due mainly to cheaper labor -- and also to force up wage levels in those countries, which are said to be "unfair" because of "exploitation" and "slave labor" due to the lower labor cost (mostly for high-profile factory workers), even though most workers (in those countries and others) are made worse off by the higher costs they have to pay as a result of the artificially-high labor cost in manufacturing which is always singled out for special attention, to the exclusion of other sectors.

The higher price might support an employee wage large enough that the worker needn't . . .

"the worker"? What does "THE" worker mean? All you're doing is selecting out one type of worker to the exclusion of all others, and then because you're giving that one select class of workers a benefit you imagine you're helping ALL workers, which couldn't be farther from the truth. What you're really doing is penalizing all other workers who have to pay that higher (labor) cost (through higher prices) to benefit the favored class of workers (usually factory workers) which you selected for this special benefit. And ignoring that someone has to pay that higher cost. When you bash all consumers in order to pay the higher labor cost to one select class, you're actually making all workers generally worse off, not better off.

So in reality the artificially-higher wage level achieved this way drives up the costs to the vast majority of poor people and thus drives them to greater desperation than before.

. . . wage large enough that the worker needn't hire out his children as slave laborers.

Whatever may be the harsh labor conditions, they're made worse by this artificial propping up of wages to a select class of workers. The impulsive Marxist class-warfare language ("slave laborers") doesn't fix anything, except to give an outlet to the "fair trade" crusader's hate.


VOLUNTARY vs. SLAVE labor

If the employer is not using force against the worker, then it cannot be called "slave" labor, because if the "slavery" is not that of coercion by the employer, threatening violence to the worker, then what is the coercion or force being used which makes it "slave" labor instead of voluntary choice? Even if the worker (or job-seeker) is starving, that is not the employer threatening violence to that worker. So the "force" or "slavery" element is coming from nature rather than from the employer, and by that standard, ALL of us are "slaves" in any work we do, no matter how high the wage level, because there's always some intimidation from nature which is forcing us to do this work, no matter how "voluntary" it may seem to be.

If child labor had been prohibited, 50 or 100 years ago (or 500 or 1000), then we'd all be worse off today, and the suffering and poverty and famine in the world would have been vastly greater, back then and also today. Artificially driving up the wage level can do nothing but make children everywhere worse off, as it drives down production and drives up the prices poor people have to pay.

Chanting slogans about "slavery" do nothing to put food into that child's mouth. And yet "fair trade" has nothing but slogans, as it continually makes everyone worse off rather than better off. You don't improve the chance for poor people and their children by reducing production and making everything they buy more costly. No matter how many cheap Marxist slogans and self-righteous sermons you preach. You have to come up with something more than mere slogans and impulsive spontaneous outbursts against the dirty capitalist pigs -- something more than pure scapegoating and hate.

"Free trade is always the fair price." Can you cite any economist who believes this trite mantra?

Yes, Milton Friedman said this. And Von Mises and the Austrian school economists. And really everyone who believes in competition, which causes most of the lower prices. It's virtually the same as saying "Competition always produces the fair price." This is not just words, but refers to improvement in performance by producers. It is scientifically measurable, though obviously the measurements are not precise. But there are measurable factors which can strongly indicate who is performing better and how much better their performance is, and how this produces better outcomes.

Much objective economic policy is based on the principle that competition is better for the economy, and "free trade" is basically a policy of increasing the players more and more to keep increasing the competition. Whereas "fair trade" is always about reducing competition which is judged as "unfair" to the less competitive, who are the victims of free trade. You can't identify who are the victims of free trade, or beneficiaries of "fair trade," other than certain of those who are less competitive but who have some kind of clout to be able to suppress the more competitive, and thus enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of society.

Because More Competition = everyone is made better off, even though a few uncompetitive are worse off for a short time, just as when uncompetitive workers are replaced by machines.

"Markets usually help set appropriate prices." Sure. But please let us not fall into the black-and-white thinking that has reduced American discourse to a laughing-stock.

That would be the "fair trade" black-and-white thinking, in slogans such as: "exploitation" and "livable wage" and "the working man" and "unfair competition" and "slave labor" and other laughable slogans used by uncompetitive crybabies promoting their costly entitlements which everyone else has to pay for.

If a market is saturated so that workers are making less than a living wage, a lot of them need to work with something else.

And if there's a shortage of bread, let them eat cake.

When companies are allowed to hire cheap labor, much more bread gets produced.

FREE TRADE = more bread produced.

FAIR TRADE = less bread produced.

 

[DBT]

Wages have been 'artificially' stagnating for decades. The gulf between the highest paid and those below has been 'artificially' growing wider for decades.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Artificially driving up wages or any other price makes people worse off overall, despite the popular knee-jerk Marxist hate language.

You still haven't addressed the issue that all too often what you portray as "free" trade is nothing of the sort at the level of the workers.

When the workers are free to deal with a range of non-colluding companies and regulation adequately addresses externalities then free trade is certainly the best.