When and why did 'free trade' become a word with only positive connotations and something that always should be sought after?
Is it just the word "free"? What if we called it uncontrolled trade or something along those lines?
>>1347391
when people realized it brought prosperity
>>1347398
Except that that isn't true. Every time someone has tried fully neoliberal policies, it has ended up with more suffering than prosperity.
Most countries on earth practice protectionism to some extent.
>>1347403
All the countries trade with each other at some point free trade allows to buy any product at a cheaper price
>>1347415
>All the countries trade with each other at some point
what?
>free trade allows to buy any product at a cheaper price
Stacked up against the extra costs that come from unemployment, welfare and all the other costs that come from free trade destroying industries cheaper prices don't hold up.
You don't understand by question. I was asking why free trade is perceived as being entirely positive thing when in practice no one engages in fully free trade and applications of neoliberalism have ended up with more suffering than good.
>>1347403
>neoliberal policies
You didn't say "neoliberal policies", you said "free trade".
Make up your mind and don't shift the goalposts.
Are you saying free trade is analogous to neoliberalism? If you are, then why aren't you making a thread about neoliberalism?
>>1347428
>what?
Yes,even North korea and Cuba trade nowadays.I said trade not free trade
>Stacked up against the extra costs that come from unemployment, welfare and all the other costs that come from free trade destroying industries cheaper prices don't hold up.
You don't understand by question. I was asking why free trade is perceived as being entirely positive thing when in practice no one engages in fully free trade and applications of neoliberalism have ended up with more suffering than good.
Industry doesnt disappear,due free trade,in fact more free markets have quite powerful industrial/manufacturing sectors, like Switzerland.And not all activities have to be related to industry,trading,services or tourism are also valid sources of employability.
>>1347429
There is no neoliberalism without free trade. It is one of the core principles of neoliberalism.
I am not moving goalposts, because many people who followed neoliberal economics and applied it to domestic industry had the intention of making trade more free.
Acting as if neoliberalism and free trade don't go hand in hand is dishonest.
>>1347446
>Industry doesnt disappear,due free trade
This statement is objectively false. Industry DOES disappear because of free trade which is why governments spend enormous amounts of money to subsidize their industries mainly to protect jobs.
>in fact more free markets have quite powerful industrial/manufacturing sectors, like Switzerland
Some domestic industries survive in a free trade system of course, but not all. Swizerland also protects its industries.
>And not all activities have to be related to industry,trading,services or tourism are also valid sources of employability.
Re-employment isn't that simple. The effects of Thatcher are strongly present in Northern England still. Services can also be hampered by free trade.
>>1347448
I am not acting like free trade and neoliberalism don't go hand in hand.
But free trade doesn't MEAN neoliberalism, you moron.
It's not like you must be a neoliberal axiomatically, just by supporting free trade. I mean, my country Norway is a social democratic welfare state, and it's also high on economic freedom.
>>1347391
About the time people pointed out all the flaws in mercantilist modes of thought.
>>1347448
>There is no neoliberalism without free trade. It is one of the core principles of neoliberalism.
You're just saying there's no French fries without potatoes. Doesn't mean all potatoes result in French fries. In case you're not following, neoliberalism is French fries and potatoes are free trade.
>>1347455
>This statement is objectively false. Industry DOES disappear because of free trade which is why governments spend enormous amounts of money to subsidize their industries mainly to protect jobs.
Industry also disappears underprotectionism.What is your point? Companies can go bankrupt
>Some domestic industries survive in a free trade system of course, but not all. Swizerland also protects its industries.
I said that it was one of the most free economies,which it is.
>Re-employment isn't that simple
That is exactly what happened during the industrial revolution
>The effects of Thatcher are strongly present in Northern England still
Because the region hasnt diversified its economy and relied on subsudizing coal.The rest of the country,has done better.That is why people have emigrated from northern England,as it failed to adapt
>>1347527
How is questioning free trade a /pol/ thing?
Because people conflate things with other things that have nothing to do with the thing in question.
There is no real relationship between capitalism and democracy. There is no correlation between liberalism and globalization. It's just propaganda that's been shoved down our throats, the idea that prosperity is tied with free trade and is also somehow inherently a product of a democratic, capitalist society.
>>1347542
pol is for politics.Your topic is a pol topic,therfore it belongs there
>>1347428
>He thinks Neoliberalism is a bad thing
>>1347455
You are only looking at one side of the coin. You see the mines closed down in the north of England but you don't see the mines opening in China etc. Those mines were kept open far too long, meaning that the adjustment was worse than it could have been.
>>1347391
Adam Smith was one of the first famous economists that promoted free trade policies, I believe.
>and something that always should be sought after?
As soon as the relevant nations of the world (the West) realized that they might still use protectionism against their European neighbors, but could vastly outperform every other shithole on the planet.
Literally, gotta go fast sanic "cum on step it up".
Because, whenever an uncompetitive shithole opens up their markets, Western traders can easily enter and eliminate all local competition in the short term. Over time, that local nation might find a niche (like cheap labor) with which you could find one leg to stand on.
So, if you are dominating in a certain market, you obviously want to increase that market power by aquiring larger markets. If not, go Trump or EU style with muh local products, muh local milk, muh muh, etc
Only losers and children need support wheels to ride their bikes.
Also, all that theoretical stuff about perfect allocation of goods and services by prices works better if there is less interference.
>>1347391
If we look at it in a simplistic view, many countries have disparate ratios of imports to exports, and if I'm paying for so much of your stuff, you're paying for very little of mine and it's causing my domestic suppliers to suffer, I'm going to raise taxes on you so my peoples' products can compete. Right now, a country as the UK is enjoying a much negotiated balance to maintain the value and stability of its exports, and that's going to change with brexit, as those countries formerly under contract of mandated trade tax are no longer mandated. They'll make sure domestic products can compete, and UK exports will need to become so cheap that the companies will need to lay off people, possibly do more outsourcing as American corporations do.
Well, fun fact: Laissez-faire economics came from the results of France liberalizing it's slave trade to private entities because it was going backrupt.
Which was a... "success"?
>>1347617
>Adam Smith was one of the first famous economists that promoted free trade policies
Adam Smith was pretty different to what modern free trade fags advocate for.
>>1347645
The liberalizing of their slave trade isn't what made them money though. It was selling half the United States to Thomas Jefferson.
>>1347391
Free trade is good 90% of the time
>>1347391
>When and why did 'free trade' become a word with only positive connotations and something that always should be sought after?
1776, the year Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations
