You're merely trying to justify the folly of trying to make trade comment without knowing any trade analysis. That won't wash. This is complete nonsense. Rejecting trade as a zero sum game is a celebration of the market. There is no notion of 'industry set in stone', as we've seen with dynamic comparative advantage and an understanding of intra-industry trade. The idea that 'free trade' distorts is as painful as your 'Ricardo invented free trade'.
Please. Industry is a product of man. In every developed nation, there is still underdeveloped men. "Free trade" guarantees these men stay underdeveloped, as the whole theory is about picking which nations are "rich enough".
This is just nonsense, only again advertising you haven't bothered to try and defend your stance with trade analysis. Crikey, at least the mercantilists 'tried' to understand economic relations
Wait a minute here. Was it bought with stimulus money? If so...that money was meant to employ Americans. It has nothing to do with free trade.
The proof is in the pudding, genius. The western economy isn't exactly excelling, now is it? What reality do you live in when your policies are in place and everything is struggling? Do you not ever leave your cubicle?
You do like to go for the most common errors. The current crisis reflects neoliberalism, with the hegemony of the financial class creating greater instabilities. Its of course bleedin obvious that we've seen substantial increases in well-being through trade. Take, for example, the analysis into monopolistic competition: intra-industry trade reflecting price reductions and, through competition, greater innovation and improvements in product quality As a SME consultant I see firms all the time who have gained through trade. Not surprisingly, none of them entertain the prance of economic nationalism
Neoliberalism is a label for the market-driven[1] approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state. So you think the problem is there is no world government, right? A world government would fix the holes in international trade, right?
As already remarked, it can only be understood by referring to the hegemony of the financial class. One can't simply refer to trade liberalisation. For example, market socialist have referred to trade as a means to avoid the calculation problem associated with economic planning
I did, but I completely disagree on the premise that off shoring is about exploiting absolute advantage and not comparative. If it were the case Africa would be the bastion of American off shoring as they have by far the cheapest labor and are rich in natural resources, this isn't the case however. I disagree, I know he wants you to research it, so please do, I did once upon a time and it resulted me in learning a great deal. Though admittedly I struggle with the mathematics portions of the journal articles. I want to take this conversation seriously, but comments like this make it very difficult. No one invented free trade A few possibly, but we could find a few rogue members of any group to subscribe to something crazy.... hell there's still a few Stalinist out there. He doesn't have to rely on my swallowing anything, this is my opinion based on my own research, it should be telling that we actually agree on this topic considering how far apart we are on most issues. The very fact that people from broad economic perspectives agree is evidence of how ubiquitous it is.