The ideology of "Free trade" is Killing America's Economy

Yup, I get that, let S&D work it's magic yadda yadda. That can't be though, there's information gaps and laborers can't just drop everything and go to any open position, not even to mention that so many skills are specific to the job you have.

I understand the problem but is there a solution? Entrepreneurship seems the obvious answer, but that's a huge roll of the dice and I don't see any way to remove the risk. As you move up the skill chain (at least from my experience) you have a lot more bargaining power but for those who are uneducated or unskilled I don't see any obvious path to resolution.

 

You're just stating the obvious: market imperfections ensure coercion, even in an orthodox setting.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*). You're not the only reader here. Which is why I wrote more than what you quoted.

Is there a solution or is it a prerequisite and the conversation starts from there?

 

There's no solution in capitalism. There is naturally coercion. Ponce and prance won't change that.

 

I don't see any arrangement solving the problem. Nothing changes the stakes at the bargaining table, profit sharing and worker co-ops alleviate the problem, but there's no solution.

 

Socialism is the closest one gets.

 

Even if I accepted that (which I don't), there's no peaceful way to get there from here. Violence and theft aren't better alternatives to coercion, at least with the latter ignorance can lead to complacency.

 

Its merely a matter of protection of property rights

 

If we know this, then why is the world in a demand driven recession?

 

Smart of you to avoid the rest of the indictment.

 

And this is why we can never get anywhere.

We can't even ask the right questions.

The question isn't what is the productive value.

The correct question is what wage maximizes consumption while ensuring capital for new investment?

In other words what is the most money that can be paid to labor/consumers, while still ensuring the business's ability to grow!

 

I didn't avoid anything. You came out with a red herring and blubbered around it

 

How does profit determine productive value?

 

Of course you did, transition is something socialists aren't interested in discussing. Discussing property rights and whistling past the graveyard about the path to them is height of absurdity.

 

Profit, in the make believe world of 'exchange only' labour contracts, will lead to wages according to productivity (as shown by supply and demand theory). We don't need to determine productive value. We only need to refer to wages. We know of course that utopia cannot occur. Essentially the reality of wages makes your position look decidedly silly!

 

Explain how it's calculated then. I don't want to argue against strawmen.

 

A pathetic reply. We have economic rents (theft generated by coercion in the labour contract). Avoiding those rents is indeed protecting property rights, with your red herring decidedly low powered. You do seem to be struggling somewhat recently. Perhaps the innate right wing attitudes of your homeland is confusing you?

 

There is no right to be free from any coercion, only from coercion backed by the threat or use of violence.

 

In the perfect world of supply and demand where workers know about all the jobs available and can up and move to any of them whenever they choose, the invisible hand would pay people based on how much they contributed to the company. No need for math to over complicate the issue, the market price for labor would be like that for other commodities; determined by scarcity and demand.

 

I'm not interested in cliché, especially from someone that ignores the coercion in capitalism because of utopian need

 

Your copying of my comments is also beginning to bore. Grow a pair and go further!

 

I don't ignore it. I don't consider it to be a moral matter as it's not violent coercion. That you conflate coercion in which one person feels compelled by circumstances to take less than what he or she dreams of having with the violent coercion of the threat of imprisonment or bodily harm is your own foolishness. I suppose that's how you justify replacing that form of coercion of circumstance with your own form of state violence. Speaking of Utopian! You want the state to use it's police powers to violently enforce your morality against peaceful people.

 

Please spare the the valuations, I'm completely uninterested in your subjective critique.

It's a sharp critique regarding getting there from here. You can't ignore the transition period, you're sounding like the gold standard folks who fail to realize the problems with change management.

Your obfuscation tactics no longer win the day, my "homeland" has created one of the most prosperous periods in world history, something the UK failed to accomplish during it's period of imperialism, but I digress.

 

Its theft. Ignoring it shows the inanity of your position.

 

It's text book stuff, hard to achieve variety when your just repeating what most people learn as an undergrad.