Is free trade between countries the same as between individuals?

Conservatives and libertarians support free trade between individuals and between countries in the belief that Republican capitalism works best in both cases. isn’t it amazing how despite liberals best efforts they really can’t hide from us the real And constant issue of political economy ie, capitalism versus socialism.

 

Uncle Ferd hopes so.

He alla time tryin' to get some free trade goin'...

... `tween him anna hootchie-cootchie lady dat works at Trixie's...

... dat lives next door.

 

No. Individuals within a country have to play by the same rules but countries can choose not to. This is why negotiating trade agreements is necessary and why isolating some from countries who won't play by the same rules is also necessary.

 

so you are saying the idea is to get all individuals and all countries to use free market capitalist Republican rules?

 

Countries don’t engage in trade themselves. All trade is between organisations or individuals, countries just regulate the process at and within their own borders. The concept of “free trade” between countries will mean something quite different to the concept of “free trade” between individuals/organisations.

 

so what's the difference?? You forgot to tell us??

 

That was in the first line. Countries don’t engage in trade themselves so their “free trade” is about facilitating it (or not). Individuals and organisations “free trade” is actually choosing to do it (or not).

For example, a company could sign an exclusive contract with a supplier, meaning they’re not free to trade with any other supplier for the same products. That’d be very different to governments imposing tariffs or regulations to try to influence the flow of cross-border trade.

 

No idea what you are talking about. Do you support free trade between countries? Do you support free trade between individuals?

 

Comparing the two is nonsensical. An understanding of the gains from free trade is provided by factor proportions (factor abundance and factor intensity). This allows to understand the nature of specialisation.

You obviously can't refer to factor proportions with exchange between two individuals. The analysis differs and focuses on very particular aspects of Pareto Efficiency.

 

Intellectual property laws, Child labor laws, Slave Labor, Environmental Regulations etc...

Most dont actually believe in Laissez-faire Capitalism. There need to be child labor laws as well as slave labor, environmental regulations, and intellectual property laws. There needs to be tax to make roads so that businesses can deliver goods and schools to have workers who can intellectually compete.

We need tax and we need regulations but what free trade is really about is that government does not pick winners and losers in the market and that trade, tax, and regulatory laws are enforced equitably and fairly.

 

totally wrong of course. capitalists support free trade for exactly the same reason they support free trade between individuals: The more free trade the more wisdom of individuals creates efficiency and higher standards of living, the less free trade the more ignorance of government bureaucrats creates inefficiency and the lower our standards of living. Any country will have a comparative advantage and so will any state county or individual. Now you’ve got the basics of Econ 101.

 

You seem totally confused laissez-faire capitalism does not mean you can steal stuff at gunpoint and the government will leave you alone. You need to think about this and then get back to us.

 

You do love to get back economics wrong. It's like a psychological need.

The determinants of comparative advantage is nothing new. The focus on factor proportions (see Heckscher-Ohlin) has dominated traditional trade analysis, building on the work by the likes of Smith and Ricardo. A capital abundant country, for example, will specialise in capital intensive product.

You can refer to more recent analysis, such as the stuff which made Krugman famous. However, that is dominated by using economies of scale and the innovation process to understand intra-industry trade.

And individual analysis? Comparison of tariff and tax provides a hint! A tariff in a developed country, reflecting how mercantilism has been destroyed, is typically the height of economic irrationality. A tax on an individual, however, often is rational. That could reflect specific market failure (e.g. fuel tax, given pollution effects) or the need to promote wellbeing through public good provision (including the funding of security to protect property rights)

 

When you get confused you Meander all over the place with your long rants and allusions to fellow Lib Commies. a country will have a comparative advantage and so will an individual. Do you understand now ?

 

A capital abundant individual for example will specialize in capital abundant products.

 

A tax on an individual and a tax on a country are the same. both reflect a countries need for revenue and a lib commie need to interfere with the free market.

 

Nope. You again show your innocence of basic economics. A tariff harms the specialisation process. For developed countries it guarantees net loss in economic well being.

We don't have that with tax. The net effect is typically positive, as I've already proven.

 

This is an idiotic statement. An individual is labour. If labour is high relative to capital then the country is labour abundant. Products are either capital or labour intensive (not abundant)

 

Exactly, any tariff or tax harms the free market process and decreases our standard of living

 

exactly, paying taxes, tariff or other wise, guarantees a net loss in economic well being or less money to spend

 

An individual or group with money is capital

 

Nope. The specialisation process is only harmed through tariffs. Taxes distort markets in different ways. Those distortions, however, are typically outweighed through the gains achieved (e.g. funding public goods).

 

harming specialization and distorting markets are identical. Love your commie assumption that when govt spends tariff tax money it not as well spend as when people spent their own money. Jeff Bezos' comparative advantage was almost lost when he couldn't raise the first $50,000 he needed thanks to the cap gains tax.

 

Nope. Harming specialisation necessarily ensures reduction in well-being. You've already been educated on the nature of the Heckscher-Ohlin analysis.

An individual does not have comparative advantage. That is determined through factor proportions. You continue to bathe in economic error.

 

taxing venture capital so that Jeff Bezos almost didn't get enough capital harms specialization in distribution thus reduces well being. I"d say you've been crushed once again. Do you want to be a liberal all your life? Do you want to appear at the gates of heaven that way?