If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You didn't read it then. Well done. You also don't seem to understand what "free trade" currently means.
Hence the EU for example, a freetrade area
Does our membership of the Eu require us to privatise?
Do you disagree with those statements I made?
They want to reduce developed world protectionism, that is freer trae isn't it?
I suggest you also look into the truth of the World Bank/IMF "loan" systems and the caveat entitled "structural adjustments". It is these more than the oft used diversionary rhetoric of "corrupt african/(et al) regimes" that accounts for the perpetual indebtedness and lack of development of these countries under the neo-liberal globalist system.
They want to redress the balance - and they're advocating trade rules for developing countries
So, you're misrepresenting what they say Toadborg.
They may have some other ideas but nothing concrete as far as I can tell (their site is very vague and wishy-washy about the aims of their campaign)
Hmm, well Oxfam - one of the more conservative partners calls for
Which looks like a reduction in developed world protectionism, with the right for developing countries to decide their own policies.
And the somewhat more radical War on Want is clear that "Fair trade NOT free trade is fundamental if we are to reduce global poverty."
You need to look at the individual organisations own sites - their positions vary which is why there isn't an agreed overall statement.
But, like I said the main thing is a call for liberalisation of the developed world, which makes it rather odd that they seem to want the developing world to be able to be protectionist.......
Heres what the Trade Justice Movement called for:
Its no good reading the first 2 btw - there are 8
The main players in MPH were also signed up to TJM.
:yes:
The rest simply mandates that countrys' be able to be as protectioist as they want, shocking.......
(Though I agree with 7.)
what you dont understnad is that they wouldnt be signing up for free trade from both parties, just them and a couple of 'concessions' by the US
happened to mexico in NAFTA and well they aren't thick and want to develop their own industry better before so they can have some say in their own development
Do you have evidence for the Mexico case? Things didn't go well for Mexico after their trade lib but that was not an ordinary case.
Was the US not required to open by NAFTA then?
well it was supposed to open up trade, and mexico's main thing is maize growing - the mexican stopped its farm subisides and the US kept their despite it breaking the rules and thus mexico got lumbered with lots of subsidised maize putting their own growers out of business
im cooking atm so can't search just yet
Really? According to the source i posted more than 2/3 of mexicans favour economic integration with other american countries.
Maize farmers are a minoruty even in Mexico, they may have lost out if WMPs description is accurate but the rest of the Mexican populace would have benefited from cheaper produce.
Errrr...we are in the process of privatising everything. "Free trade" is part of the neo-liberal project as is privatisation, as you well know.
Well it depends what you mean by "free trade" isn't it? What I mean by it is the current policies as pushed by organisations like the WTO, IMF, G8 countries etc, which is about removal of import tarrifs and protectionism and the liberalisation of trade (i.e. privatisation) in developing countries. What do you mean? I'd guess you think it means removing all protectionism so that economies can trade on a more "equal" footing. The obvious problem with this is that it is always going to be to the detriment of people in developing nations - developing economies just can't compete with the trans-national corporations and western economies due to the massive buying power, influence and economies of scale.
You're dead wrong on this, have the balls to admit it.
So consumers benefit eh? What about people? See, this is one of the problems with capitalism - it sees people in terms of the market, in terms of what we consume. What about us as conscious human beings with emotions, desires, fears all that stuff? The whole ideology objectifies and reduces people and their relationships with each other down to purely economic terms and ignores the complexities of human relationships except in terms of how much money someone can make...
yes, paid for by american tax payers actually no the us government si in huge deficits so its being paid for by asian banks and oil not because its actually cheaper to produce in mexico
when america enters into those free trade agreements it doesnt remove its protectionist policies
maize was just an example lots mroe crops are grown in mexico
growth isnt the only goal of a country - self suffiency is another
You can't make money of that, honestly.
Well, fear, yes... the Home Security market does well.
Yes you are correct in what I mean by 'free-trade', because that is what the term means.....
You are wrong about developing countries losing out however. The great thing about free-trade is that all countries can benefit. Poorer countries can benefit because they have an inate cost advantage.
The best recent example is China which is currebtly witnessing the most amazing period of economic growth and improvement in living standards that the world has ever seen, substantially based on theri ability to import and export on a large scale......
No I am not.
As far as I can see their main policy with regards to trade is that they want the developed world to reduce trade barriers, this is trade liberalisation......
What on earth are you on about?
How precisely are peoples emotions etc anything to do with trade liberalisation?
Again I would ask for evidence.......
Self-sufficiency is a ridiculous goal, probably the only country that aims for that is North Korea.
Some countries aimed for autarky in the 1930s due to the threat of war and it was one of the reasons why the effect of the depression was magnified in Europe in particular......
There may be political reasons for aiming for some degree of self-sufficincy but there are no good economic reasons.........
so by "free trade", you mean an ideological position that doesn't actually bear any resemblance to what is currently known as "free trade"?
I don't see why you are intent on arguing over semantics........
You can't even admit when you're blatantly wrong
Because capitalism also comes with an ideology. It sees people as either consumers or producers, reduces the complexities of human experience down to functions of economics and views economics as a mechanical system (or engine as someone described on another thread), not as the product of the social relationships between people. It limits the terms of the debate, seeing everything as being reducible to economic consumption and money ,as in the example I just quoted. Read up on ideology, hegemony and the works of Antonio Gramsci.