Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[DBT]

It's not Keynsianism, it's reality. If people don't have the money, they cannot spend on luxuries like eating out, going to a movie, etc, with the inevitable flow on effect of that suppressed economic activity.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not Keynsianism, it's reality. If people don't have the money, they cannot spend on luxuries like eating out, going to a movie, etc, with the inevitable flow on effect of that suppressed economic activity.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

Spending on luxuries, by definition, only slows down the economy. They're fundamentally unnecessary purchases. The reason why we're able to buy so many luxuries is because the sectors producing the things we actually need, food, electricity, housing, clothing, IT, domestic appliances, medicine etc, and the industrial complex (now heavily robotisized) making all that easier. It functions as a leverage lifting the rest of society. It's easy to forget in our modern age because those sectors are hyper effective now. The minutes we need to work a day to generate enough purchasing power to buy the necessities is so small we can easily get the idea that it's all about just buying shit, (we don't need). But people exchanging goods nobody needs is just like a children's game. The children feel they are helping. But they're not.

Today most people are unnecessary in the economy. They are adding nothing of actual value. We might value them anyway because we now have a taste for luxuries. But we'd all be fine without hairdressers.

You are treating the game as the goal, keeping everybody in the economy feel like they're helping, even though they're not. Yes, it's a more pleasant society. I'm for it. For democracy reasons etc. But it's not helping the economy.

But we're shit at respecting the things that are important. And it's a problem today. In India they have a weak welfare programmes and protection of people in trouble. So they produce more engineers than anybody else. China is also good. In the West we have a perpetual shortage of engineers. Our relative elevation of luxury consumption is causing our economy harm.

And they will inevitably lead to China and India racing past the West in affluence. The reason why they're so good at correctly identifying what jobs adds value to the economy is because they don't have a huge value surplus to take from. So they, out of necessity, have to focus on the right things to survive at all. But that will soon change. And since they're less democratic than us their leaders won't get swayed by populistic left wing Keynsian rhetoric, which is basically, spread luxuries around because it's great for everyone. When it's not.

 

[DBT]

It's not Keynsianism, it's reality. If people don't have the money, they cannot spend on luxuries like eating out, going to a movie, etc, with the inevitable flow on effect of that suppressed economic activity.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

Spending on luxuries, by definition, only slows down the economy. They're fundamentally unnecessary purchases. The reason why we're able to buy so many luxuries is because the sectors producing the things we actually need, food, electricity, housing, clothing, IT, domestic appliances, medicine etc, and the industrial complex (now heavily robotisized) making all that easier. It functions as a leverage lifting the rest of society. It's easy to forget in our modern age because those sectors are hyper effective now. The minutes we need to work a day to generate enough purchasing power to buy the necessities is so small we can easily get the idea that it's all about just buying shit, (we don't need). But people exchanging goods nobody needs is just like a children's game. The children feel they are helping. But they're not.

Today most people are unnecessary in the economy. They are adding nothing of actual value. We might value them anyway because we now have a taste for luxuries. But we'd all be fine without hairdressers.

You are treating the game as the goal, keeping everybody in the economy feel like they're helping, even though they're not. Yes, it's a more pleasant society. I'm for it. For democracy reasons etc. But it's not helping the economy.

But we're shit at respecting the things that are important. And it's a problem today. In India they have a weak welfare programmes and protection of people in trouble. So they produce more engineers than anybody else. China is also good. In the West we have a perpetual shortage of engineers. Our relative elevation of luxury consumption is causing our economy harm.

And they will inevitably lead to China and India racing past the West in affluence. The reason why they're so good at correctly identifying what jobs adds value to the economy is because they don't have a huge value surplus to take from. So they, out of necessity, have to focus on the right things to survive at all. But that will soon change. And since they're less democratic than us their leaders won't get swayed by populistic left wing Keynsian rhetoric, which is basically, spread luxuries around because it's great for everyone. When it's not.

.
When I said luxuries I didn't mean BMW's, Porshes or Mansions on the Hill.

I meant my luxuries for working class people, a cafe meal, a few beers at the pub, a night at the movies, etc.

It's the extremely rich who spend at the high end of town with their expensive cars and mansions, which still stimulates the economy to a point, an upper end bubble with a bit of trickle down.

But are far fewer super rich than there are ordinary people struggling to make ends meet, and that's where the money is sorely needed. The super rich are not struggling.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not Keynsianism, it's reality. If people don't have the money, they cannot spend on luxuries like eating out, going to a movie, etc, with the inevitable flow on effect of that suppressed economic activity.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

Spending on luxuries, by definition, only slows down the economy. They're fundamentally unnecessary purchases. The reason why we're able to buy so many luxuries is because the sectors producing the things we actually need, food, electricity, housing, clothing, IT, domestic appliances, medicine etc, and the industrial complex (now heavily robotisized) making all that easier. It functions as a leverage lifting the rest of society. It's easy to forget in our modern age because those sectors are hyper effective now. The minutes we need to work a day to generate enough purchasing power to buy the necessities is so small we can easily get the idea that it's all about just buying shit, (we don't need). But people exchanging goods nobody needs is just like a children's game. The children feel they are helping. But they're not.

Today most people are unnecessary in the economy. They are adding nothing of actual value. We might value them anyway because we now have a taste for luxuries. But we'd all be fine without hairdressers.

You are treating the game as the goal, keeping everybody in the economy feel like they're helping, even though they're not. Yes, it's a more pleasant society. I'm for it. For democracy reasons etc. But it's not helping the economy.

But we're shit at respecting the things that are important. And it's a problem today. In India they have a weak welfare programmes and protection of people in trouble. So they produce more engineers than anybody else. China is also good. In the West we have a perpetual shortage of engineers. Our relative elevation of luxury consumption is causing our economy harm.

And they will inevitably lead to China and India racing past the West in affluence. The reason why they're so good at correctly identifying what jobs adds value to the economy is because they don't have a huge value surplus to take from. So they, out of necessity, have to focus on the right things to survive at all. But that will soon change. And since they're less democratic than us their leaders won't get swayed by populistic left wing Keynsian rhetoric, which is basically, spread luxuries around because it's great for everyone. When it's not.

.
When I said luxuries I didn't mean BMW's, Porshes or Mansions on the Hill.

I meant my luxuries for working class people, a cafe meal, a few beers at the pub, a night at the movies, etc.

It's the extremely rich who spend at the high end of town with their expensive cars and mansions, which still stimulates the economy to a point, an upper end bubble with a bit of trickle down.

But are far fewer super rich than there are ordinary people struggling to make ends meet, and that's where the money is sorely needed. The super rich are not struggling.

Trickle down was always bullshit. It's just something Reagan pulled out of his ass. It's actually more important that the poor have incentives that encourage them to make sensible day-to-day choices, rather than the rich. That's the hard part. Most things conservatives say is bullshit.

Bill Gates main interest in life is lying on his back reading books. He doesn't have any conspicous consumption. Rich people don't employ armies of servants any more. That age is past. And the quality of life for everybody, including poor people is so high today, that there is very little incentive for rich people to blow that much money on expensive things. You don't even need to be rich today to live in a huge house. You can be poor even.

Luxuries are luxuries. What's your argument for them adding to the economy? Meals in restaurants are so attrocious in quality today, that you are always better off eating at home anyway. It's such a problem that it has led to USA's massive obesity epidemic. Which puts a strain on the medical system, making the entire economy less efficient. If anything, for the sake of the overall economy, we should today, try our best to keep people away from restaurants. So your argument that we should give people money so that they go to restaurants is counter productive. Just to focus on one example in your list.

You're talking about the lube that makes the economic machine run more smoothly. Not the actual engine (capital) or the fuel (human knowledge and time). People exchanging a lot of money doesn't mean the economy is doing better. It only means GDP is higher. Instead of focusing on real economic efficiency you are focused on manipulating the metric. Actual value in a market is very hard to calculate. There is no good metric for it. All we have is half arsed analogues. But never forget that the analogue is just a proxy. Never confuse that for the real thing. Which what you are doing when you're focused on boosting GDP. That's why I accused you of being a Keynsian. That was his mistake.

Today's world is a world of engineers running the world, a tiny group of farmers feeding them, and the rest entertaining these two groups or otherwise making it more pleasant in various ways. And increasingly robots are making them all redundant. We could do away with most people today and it wouldn't make a dent in our quality of life for the remaining people.

 

[DBT]

Trickle down is BS. Luxury is relative. Unlike the average low income or middle class worker, the very rich may not consider eating out as a luxury, just routine.

As I said, spending money supports in local businesses, cafes, cinemas, goods and services supports these businesses. Who, without sufficient customers spending their money on their goods and services would themselves struggle.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Trickle down is BS. Luxury is relative. Unlike the average low income or middle class worker, the very rich may not consider eating out as a luxury, just routine.

In economics luxury goods and services are a specific thing.

In economics, a luxury good (or upmarket good) is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, so that expenditures on the good become a greater proportion of overall spending.

Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods, where demand increases proportionally less than income

In times of extreme crisis (like wars or famine) the price of necessity goods will shoot up while the luxury goods market will collapse. That's the difference. Because luxuries fill no other function in that market other than as an unnecessary indulgence. We "invest" in luxuries to signal tribal belonging in social classes. They have no other function.

And I suspect it's the other way around. Poor people eat out, primarily fast food, because they don't have the time or ability to cook. Rich people cook at home, because cooking at home today has high status. The highest status today is to be both affluent as well as having lots of time to waste. Rich people today are ripped as fuck. Most of them have bodies like professional athletes. You're not going to get a hot athletic body by eating out several times a week.

As I said, spending money supports in local businesses, cafes, cinemas, goods and services supports these businesses. Who, without sufficient customers spending their money on their goods and services would themselves struggle.

It's basically welfare. You're arguing that they should be paid above market value to keep alive an industry that isn't viable on it's own. I agree that we should be doing this. But thinking it's helping the economy is false. It's basically another form of welfare. Also not of any value to the economy.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Universal Argument against free trade, fair trade, capitalism, socialism, libertarianism . . .

. . . populism, or against any other "ism" you can imagine.

Artificially driving up wages or any other price makes people worse off overall, . . .

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 . . .

There will always be some amount of collusion among companies. It's impossible to prevent one company from communicating with another. There's also collusion between independent contractors. Like a shoeshiner at 8th and Broadway getting together with another shoeshiner at 6th and Broadway and setting their prices. This can be made illegal, sort of, but good luck trying to enforce it! It's impossible to eliminate all collusion.

. . . and regulation adequately addresses externalities then free trade is certainly the best.

But not until all collusion and all externalities are addressed by perfect regulations which eliminate every evil? So until we have that perfect system of regulations eliminating all imaginable evil, there's no free trade?

But regulation will never be totally adequate. So trade has to be prohibited? or free trade is disproved? What is the point? Something in the world is not exactly perfect, so therefore every idea about making the world better is refuted?

You can always argue that something cannot be done until every evil is first eliminated. You could say there can be no democracy, no justice, no free speech, no free press, no human rights, etc., because there is collusion going on somewhere, and other evils, and unless all the evils are first eliminated, no system for doing things can ever work, or be right.

But then, what's the default position? We also can't have "fair trade" if there are evils in the world. Nothing anyone proposes is possible unless first all the evils are eliminated. So the default position is always what? the status quo? Whatever system or non-system is happening currently has to remain in place, with no change allowed, because no proposed change can ever work unless first the world is made perfect, with no evils happening anywhere?

Some say the free market can't exist as long as we have giant corporations dominating the market.

Ayn Rand said there has never really been free enterprise anywhere. Marxists say there has never been any true Socialist system tried anywhere.

So, the universal argument against changing anything to make the world better is: We can't have it until first we have a perfect world for it to operate in. So first make the world perfect, eliminating all the evils, and only then can we have -- Free Trade, or Fair Trade, or Free Enterprise, or Communism, or Capitalism, or Socialism, or Democracy, or Liberty, or ---- whatever -- whatever system you want, it isn't possible until first we create a perfect world for it.

So, every demand for change, or every claim that something should be done differently is automatically wrong -- until first a perfect world happens in which there are no evils of any kind, e.g., such as no collusion anywhere. Only then can we entertain any suggestion for change.

It's just as true that ideally there can be no "fair trade" unless all collusion is eliminated.

 

[DBT]

In economics luxury goods and services are a specific thing.



In times of extreme crisis (like wars or famine) the price of necessity goods will shoot up while the luxury goods market will collapse. That's the difference. Because luxuries fill no other function in that market other than as an unnecessary indulgence. We "invest" in luxuries to signal tribal belonging in social classes. They have no other function.

And I suspect it's the other way around. Poor people eat out, primarily fast food, because they don't have the time or ability to cook. Rich people cook at home, because cooking at home today has high status. The highest status today is to be both affluent as well as having lots of time to waste. Rich people today are ripped as fuck. Most of them have bodies like professional athletes. You're not going to get a hot athletic body by eating out several times a week.

Again, by 'luxury' I meant relative to the consumer. What the average worker considers to be a luxury is not the same in relation to the very rich who can afford these goods and services routinely, hence not a luxury for them. Something an average worker may have to forego in hard times. My point was that people spending money in the community stimulates economic activity in that community. This is not controversial.

It's basically welfare. You're arguing that they should be paid above market value to keep alive an industry that isn't viable on it's own. I agree that we should be doing this. But thinking it's helping the economy is false. It's basically another form of welfare. Also not of any value to the economy.

It's neither charity or being paid above market value. Worker wages have steadily eroded below market value.

For example:

''One of the more important challenges confronting economic policymakers across almost all advanced economies, including Australia, is the persistently slow rate of growth in real wages — that is, after allowing for the impact of persistently low price inflation.''

''Put differently, the rise in the “profits share” of Australia’s national income (to near-record highs in recent years) reflects the fact that most of the benefits of what productivity growth Australia has experienced over the past two decades have accrued to employers, rather than employees. It’s in that sense that persistently slow growth in real wages risks “diminishing our sense of shared prosperity”, ....''

 

[DrZoidberg]

Again, by 'luxury' I meant relative to the consumer. What the average worker considers to be a luxury is not the same in relation to the very rich who can afford these goods and services routinely, hence not a luxury for them. Something an average worker may have to forego in hard times. My point was that people spending money in the community stimulates economic activity in that community. This is not controversial.

Sure. But it's a net loss for the economy as a whole. If the goal of the economy is to generate as much widgets as possible, then your strategy is bad. If the goal of the economy is to spread wealthy around, while slowing down economic growth, then your strategy is good.

It's very good to have a clear head about what our goals are and why we are doing what we are doing. There's too many of the left who believe in fantasies about the economy because they want it to be true. It's a bit like conservatives questioning the efficacy of masks because they'd prefer it if Covid-19 wasn't real.

It's basically welfare. You're arguing that they should be paid above market value to keep alive an industry that isn't viable on it's own. I agree that we should be doing this. But thinking it's helping the economy is false. It's basically another form of welfare. Also not of any value to the economy.

It's neither charity or being paid above market value. Worker wages have steadily eroded below market value.

For example:

''One of the more important challenges confronting economic policymakers across almost all advanced economies, including Australia, is the persistently slow rate of growth in real wages — that is, after allowing for the impact of persistently low price inflation.''

''Put differently, the rise in the “profits share” of Australia’s national income (to near-record highs in recent years) reflects the fact that most of the benefits of what productivity growth Australia has experienced over the past two decades have accrued to employers, rather than employees. It’s in that sense that persistently slow growth in real wages risks “diminishing our sense of shared prosperity”, ....''

View attachment 29552

The graph is accurate. But it doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Market value really has fallen. Because industry is becoming increasingly roboticised. Nearly all administrators have been replaced with things like Microsoft Excell. The relative value of labour of both unskilled and skilled workers has gone down. The eroding workers wages has to do with the reality of the jobs market. Because robots are capital, what we expect to see is that an increasing proportion of the wealth generated is concrentrated at the very top of the pyramid. Which is exactly what has happened. It's not the result of some nefarious capitalist conspiracy. It's simply the result of a very real shift in the market. That's what your graph is showing.

Another way to put it, a greater proportion of real wealth generated used to be provided through the labour of workers. Now increasingly a larger proportion of wealth is generated automatically by robots and computers (ie capital).

 

[ZiprHead]

In economics luxury goods and services are a specific thing.

In reality, luxuries can be taking the kids to get slurpees at 7/11 when you're poor and can't usually afford something so simple most people, you for example, seem unable to understand..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The graph is accurate. But it doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Market value really has fallen. Because industry is becoming increasingly roboticised. Nearly all administrators have been replaced with things like Microsoft Excell. The relative value of labour of both unskilled and skilled workers has gone down. The eroding workers wages has to do with the reality of the jobs market. Because robots are capital, what we expect to see is that an increasing proportion of the wealth generated is concrentrated at the very top of the pyramid. Which is exactly what has happened. It's not the result of some nefarious capitalist conspiracy. It's simply the result of a very real shift in the market. That's what your graph is showing.

Another way to put it, a greater proportion of real wealth generated used to be provided through the labour of workers. Now increasingly a larger proportion of wealth is generated automatically by robots and computers (ie capital).

Which is what I have been saying all along.

There aren't two bins: company and workers. There are three bins: company, equipment and workers. These days the average capital per worker is years worth of salary. That money has to come from somewhere.

 

[DBT]

In economics luxury goods and services are a specific thing.

In reality, luxuries can be taking the kids to get slurpees at 7/11 when you're poor and can't usually afford something so simple most people, you for example, seem unable to understand..

I tried to explain it several times to no avail.

 

[DBT]

Sure. But it's a net loss for the economy as a whole. If the goal of the economy is to generate as much widgets as possible, then your strategy is bad. If the goal of the economy is to spread wealthy around, while slowing down economic growth, then your strategy is good.

It's very good to have a clear head about what our goals are and why we are doing what we are doing. There's too many of the left who believe in fantasies about the economy because they want it to be true. It's a bit like conservatives questioning the efficacy of masks because they'd prefer it if Covid-19 wasn't real.

It's neither charity or being paid above market value. Worker wages have steadily eroded below market value.

For example:

''One of the more important challenges confronting economic policymakers across almost all advanced economies, including Australia, is the persistently slow rate of growth in real wages — that is, after allowing for the impact of persistently low price inflation.''

''Put differently, the rise in the “profits share” of Australia’s national income (to near-record highs in recent years) reflects the fact that most of the benefits of what productivity growth Australia has experienced over the past two decades have accrued to employers, rather than employees. It’s in that sense that persistently slow growth in real wages risks “diminishing our sense of shared prosperity”, ....''

View attachment 29552

The graph is accurate. But it doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Market value really has fallen. Because industry is becoming increasingly roboticised. Nearly all administrators have been replaced with things like Microsoft Excell. The relative value of labour of both unskilled and skilled workers has gone down. The eroding workers wages has to do with the reality of the jobs market. Because robots are capital, what we expect to see is that an increasing proportion of the wealth generated is concrentrated at the very top of the pyramid. Which is exactly what has happened. It's not the result of some nefarious capitalist conspiracy. It's simply the result of a very real shift in the market. That's what your graph is showing.

Another way to put it, a greater proportion of real wealth generated used to be provided through the labour of workers. Now increasingly a larger proportion of wealth is generated automatically by robots and computers (ie capital).

The graph, as with the article, deals with the fact that that wage growth has not kept up with productivity. That wages are running at significantly below market value. Meanwhile, salaries at the top end of town have increased significantly. The rich are getting richer, while wages stagnate or decline in value.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In economics luxury goods and services are a specific thing.

In reality, luxuries can be taking the kids to get slurpees at 7/11 when you're poor and can't usually afford something so simple most people, you for example, seem unable to understand..

But that wasn't DBT's argument. DBT's argument is that we should somehow subsidise workers pays so that they can afford more luxuries because that will improve the economy. The last bit is important. DBT was arguing that it's good for the whole economy that we do this. Not because it makes poor children happy. Which I think is an admirable cause.

I objected to DBT's embracing a fantasy of economic theory, he wanted to be true, only to justify making poor people's lives a little bit less miserable. You don't need to invent that subsidising workers helps the economy. The fact that the children are made happier is enough to justify the programme.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sure. But it's a net loss for the economy as a whole. If the goal of the economy is to generate as much widgets as possible, then your strategy is bad. If the goal of the economy is to spread wealthy around, while slowing down economic growth, then your strategy is good.

It's very good to have a clear head about what our goals are and why we are doing what we are doing. There's too many of the left who believe in fantasies about the economy because they want it to be true. It's a bit like conservatives questioning the efficacy of masks because they'd prefer it if Covid-19 wasn't real.

It's neither charity or being paid above market value. Worker wages have steadily eroded below market value.

For example:

''One of the more important challenges confronting economic policymakers across almost all advanced economies, including Australia, is the persistently slow rate of growth in real wages — that is, after allowing for the impact of persistently low price inflation.''

''Put differently, the rise in the “profits share” of Australia’s national income (to near-record highs in recent years) reflects the fact that most of the benefits of what productivity growth Australia has experienced over the past two decades have accrued to employers, rather than employees. It’s in that sense that persistently slow growth in real wages risks “diminishing our sense of shared prosperity”, ....''

View attachment 29552

The graph is accurate. But it doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Market value really has fallen. Because industry is becoming increasingly roboticised. Nearly all administrators have been replaced with things like Microsoft Excell. The relative value of labour of both unskilled and skilled workers has gone down. The eroding workers wages has to do with the reality of the jobs market. Because robots are capital, what we expect to see is that an increasing proportion of the wealth generated is concrentrated at the very top of the pyramid. Which is exactly what has happened. It's not the result of some nefarious capitalist conspiracy. It's simply the result of a very real shift in the market. That's what your graph is showing.

Another way to put it, a greater proportion of real wealth generated used to be provided through the labour of workers. Now increasingly a larger proportion of wealth is generated automatically by robots and computers (ie capital).

The graph, as with the article, deals with the fact that that wage growth has not kept up with productivity. That wages are running at significantly below market value. Meanwhile, salaries at the top end of town have increased significantly. The rich are getting richer, while wages stagnate or decline in value.

You're just repeating what I'm saying. The reason is because increasingly productivity comes from capital, not labour. So the wages are following actual market value. Nothing is wrong in the graph. Workers ARE being paid a fair wage, based on what they are contributing. You can argue that they should have more than their fair share. But then you should be aware that you are manipulating market value, and that never ends well.

When us lefties introduce reforms to help workers and the poor, we need to be very careful so we don't also throw a wrench into the wheels of the economy preventing them from turning.

The Scandinavian countries are quite good at the government staying the fuck away from the market. And helping the poor in other ways. We're not perfect by any means. But that's a good way to do socialism IMHO. Don't fuck with wages. That'll never end well.

 

[DBT]

In economics luxury goods and services are a specific thing.

In reality, luxuries can be taking the kids to get slurpees at 7/11 when you're poor and can't usually afford something so simple most people, you for example, seem unable to understand..

But that wasn't DBT's argument. DBT's argument is that we should somehow subsidise workers pays so that they can afford more luxuries because that will improve the economy. The last bit is important. DBT was arguing that it's good for the whole economy that we do this. Not because it makes poor children happy. Which I think is an admirable cause.

I objected to DBT's embracing a fantasy of economic theory, he wanted to be true, only to justify making poor people's lives a little bit less miserable. You don't need to invent that subsidising workers helps the economy. The fact that the children are made happier is enough to justify the programme.

I didn't say anything about subsidizing workers pay, or even suggested it. You are adding your own twist and misrepresenting what I said. I said that there is a power imbalance between employers and employees. And that this imbalance, in basic terms (amongst other factors), is causing wage stagnation. loss of purchasing power over time and greater difficulty in making ends meet. Which in turn suppresses economic activity because workers do not have money for little luxuries like eating out, going to the movies or whatever....which would otherwise support a range of businesses and create a thriving economy.

 

[DBT]

The graph, as with the article, deals with the fact that that wage growth has not kept up with productivity. That wages are running at significantly below market value. Meanwhile, salaries at the top end of town have increased significantly. The rich are getting richer, while wages stagnate or decline in value.

You're just repeating what I'm saying. The reason is because increasingly productivity comes from capital, not labour. So the wages are following actual market value. Nothing is wrong in the graph. Workers ARE being paid a fair wage, based on what they are contributing. You can argue that they should have more than their fair share. But then you should be aware that you are manipulating market value, and that never ends well.

When us lefties introduce reforms to help workers and the poor, we need to be very careful so we don't also throw a wrench into the wheels of the economy preventing them from turning.

The Scandinavian countries are quite good at the government staying the fuck away from the market. And helping the poor in other ways. We're not perfect by any means. But that's a good way to do socialism IMHO. Don't fuck with wages. That'll never end well.

I'm not repeating what your say, I am pointing out a problem. The problem is that worker productivity has increased over time, but wages have not increased in line with productivity gains.

Technology is making labour more productive, but that is not the whole picture:

For instance:

Americans are working harder these days. Their paychecks don’t show it.

''Americans are working harder these days, but it’s not paying off like it used to.

In the first three months of 2019, employees got so much more work done that they smashed productivity forecasts.

Labor productivity in the non-farm business sector (the biggest part of the US economy) grew 2.4 percent compared to the same period last year, according to new estimates from the US Department of Labor.

That’s the highest jump in nearly a decade, and is slightly above the average quarterly growth rate for most of the post-World War II period. Under a different measure, which compares annual growth to the previous quarter, productivity grew 3.6 percent, the highest in at least four years.

Business investment in technology is certainly making workers more efficient, but that doesn’t explain such a jump in productivity at a time when capital

Productivity is up and unemployment is low. So why aren’t workers benefiting yet?''

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

This is a good point and expands to many levels.

The phrase "nothing of the sort at the level of the workers" is incoherent -- requires at least a short Wall of Text, to explain. Whatever this argument is, it refutes not only free trade, but also fair trade and capitalism and socialism and every other ism. It's probably saying that there's something that makes the economic system imperfect, and the system must first be perfect in order for any ism to work. That's not any argument against free trade, or any reason why "fair" trade would be better.

Do “Free Trade” proponents also believe in the dissolution of the patent and trademark system?

This is something which will always be imperfect, imposing rules which are unfair to someone. So therefore nothing you're in favor of can ever be right? because there will always be a non-perfect system of patents and copyrights which you can't make perfect? and so therefore whatever you propose has to be wrong? and we might as well blow up capitalism and any other economic system because it can't be made perfect? So therefore every "ism" one might propose is automatically wrong because it will not correct this problem of imperfection of patents and trademarks.

That’s not free trade - that’s government protecting one party.

It's also not "fair trade" or anything else. It's not democracy or justice or liberty. So all these ideas are bad ideas because they will never produce a perfect system of patents and copyright law.

Why would a Free Trader support that?

Why would a FAIR Trader support it? Or anyone? This is just a way of refuting anything you want to condemn as wrong. No matter what.

You could use this argument to disprove vegetarianism or Trinitarianism or antidisestablishmentarianism.

The need for patents and copyrights doesn't have to interfere with free trade. And the intellectual property laws don't have to be perfect in order for free trade to work.

If another country disregards U.S. intellectual property, then the U.S. can also disregard that country's intellectual property (and "steal" their inventions, copy them, etc.). And still practice unilateral free trade with that country.

None of this is any reason why "fair" trade is better than "free" trade.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

basic supply-and-demand, and profit motive: Artificially-higher cost = less production = lower living standard for all.

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...

Well, when no one gives the evidence, so there's nothing to look at, or acknowledge.

No one posting here has given any reason or evidence why "fair" trade is better than "free" trade. The only reason anyone thinks it's better is an obsession with the word "fair" which is a crybaby term used by crybabies or by crybaby-panderers.

"Fair" trade always means driving up the cost of production, usually the labor cost, thereby causing the production necessarily to decrease, because higher cost (with no other change) > less production if the company wants to maximize profit. The higher cost necessarily reduces the profit, but this loss of profit is minimized by reducing production by some amount.

Unless you can say what is the benefit of driving up the cost, you cannot claim there's any net gain from this higher cost and reduced production. No one here is saying what is the benefit of reducing the production. Everyone just pretends that the same production takes place anyway, while the workers are just paid more, somehow, which is not possible.

If that labor cost is driven up (with no other change), then there is necessarily reduced production and higher prices to consumers = lower living standard overall.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not repeating what your say, I am pointing out a problem. The problem is that worker productivity has increased over time, but wages have not increased in line with productivity gains.

You're making the old Marxist fallacy of assuming the pile of money generated is fixed. Because of roboticisation the worker production is much higher AND capital is generating more worth automatically. The job of a programmer, for instance, is to continually make themselves redundant. The whole point of that job is to increase leverage for the capital owner, ie the person paying the programmers salary will over time make the programmers pay relatively smaller. That's why programmers have that job at all. Or rather why the market has made that job exist.

The wheels of capitalism are turning so efficiently today that everybody is better off. Both in relative and in absolute terms those at the top of the pyramid are better off today than those at the top of the pyramid just a couple of decades ago. And not by a little bit.

So the good news is that there's a greater surplus of economic growth today making socialist reforms more affordable and possible than ever before. But don't kid yourself that socialist reforms will help the economy grow. Which was the argument you were doing.

Technology is making labour more productive, but that is not the whole picture:

For instance:

Americans are working harder these days. Their paychecks don’t show it.

''Americans are working harder these days, but it’s not paying off like it used to.

In the first three months of 2019, employees got so much more work done that they smashed productivity forecasts.

Labor productivity in the non-farm business sector (the biggest part of the US economy) grew 2.4 percent compared to the same period last year, according to new estimates from the US Department of Labor.

That’s the highest jump in nearly a decade, and is slightly above the average quarterly growth rate for most of the post-World War II period. Under a different measure, which compares annual growth to the previous quarter, productivity grew 3.6 percent, the highest in at least four years.

Business investment in technology is certainly making workers more efficient, but that doesn’t explain such a jump in productivity at a time when capital

Productivity is up and unemployment is low. So why aren’t workers benefiting yet?''

They are benifitting. Just not in relative terms. American labour laws keeps workers working long hours to make up the relative gap. But they are making more in absolute terms. And labour laws can be changed, if there's political will to do so.

The good news is that the wheels of capitalism is spinning more efficiently than they've ever done before. So there's more money than ever to skim off the top to give the poor. All we need is the political will to change it.