nah, that was probably that comet that extinguished about 95% of ALL life…

but it is the most serious threat that humanity has ever faced…

This might otherwise be said: Free trade might be a nice idea, but we haven’t tried it yet.

A shameless rip-off: Asked what he thought of Western civilization, Gandhi said it would be a good idea…

Then, though it is probably apocryphal, there is the story of the three planets to consider. That is, in order to lift ever person in the world to the level of prosperity enjoyed by the poorest Americans would require the resources of three more planets endowed exactly as Earth is with exploitable materials. A quick glance heavenward ought to assure the free-traders of their folly, cuz if those planets were there, you know fer sher they’d be visible…

This is a ridiculous assertion. While under optimal conditions, globalization can increase the wealth of an emerging economy, the distribution of that wealth among the inhabitants is a totally separate matter and highly dependent upon local political structures. It hardly matters to the individual peasant whether he is a subsistence farmer or a subsistence factory worker. In fact, it can be argued that the latter is worse as it decreases individual autonomy and increases dependence.

We use too many resources, are disproportionately wealthy …

A some level, this assumes a zero sum game, and it is a major assertion that globalization is anything but. Is this assertion then wrong? Then by extension … ?

tz said…
“Free Trade” … means 10,000 page agreements protecting kleptocrats on both sides of the borders

This might otherwise be said: Free trade might be a nice idea, but we haven’t tried it yet. Other commenters seem to agree.

We supply the consumer market, and they supply the gulag labor. Short run slash and burn capialism at it’s finest.

The platform, asset lite, stateless corporations have their way, financed by wall street, marketed by academia, and implemented by the US government.

Hold on to your financial seat belts.

Everything about the debate relies on ignoring the elephant in the living room ~ Peak Oil … In a word, using 6 barrels of crude oil for every new barrel discovered is called ~ unsustainable.

And … those new barrels are from smaller deposits, deeper in the ground, further under the ocean, in nationalized countries, in politically unstable countries and \ or all of the above.

The low hanging fruit of crude oil production has been picked and no new production can replace the low cost nor can alternative fuels be scaled up to cover the shortfall even at higher costs.

And just what do economists think will happen to trade if and when oil prices go quickly higher than today?

Their policy proposals are often vague (when specified at all), and command little consensus.”

That’s the rub ain’t it. Whenever i saw one of the free traders casually mention how disappearing manufacturing jobs was no problem because there’d be a bunch of new better jobs created – hand waiving – somehow. But they could never say what these jobs were.

Further it just doesn’t make logical sence that a company would ship 50 $40K/year jobs overseas where 100 people would work for $8k/year. Yeah that would save money and lead to lower prices. But there would not be 50 new $60k/year jobs. At most you might get a few shipping or logistics jobs, or lower paid retail jobs covering the new demand created by the lower price. But not enough to be a full replacement for the jobs lost.

The fact of the matter is, how can we have free trade or better labeled earlier, ‘fair trade’ from Chevez (which I’d define as free trade where both the interests of business and consumers are protected by law) if we have a centralized monetary system?

Our money is manipulated by central banks with no competing domestic currency to provide checks and balances. If your money is not solid but can vary in value from day to day you’re not in a fair trade system, because your currency can be unfairly manipulated.

In addition, if we are looking at the U.S. economy, we need to understand the unfair legal and tax restrictions that domestic companies face here that don’t necessarily exist in the rest of the world. Think NAFTA and where jobs and profitability went. Think, China, where low cost labor (and lack of labor laws) further outsourced our economic infrastructure in manufacturing.

Now when you put it all together, you realize that central banking and over regulation of an economy produces this Harvard theorists results. His research should more correctly be an illustration and an analysis of an unfair and fettered global trade system.

A true fair/free trade system has not existed since 1914 as TZ said earlier. I don’t think the world globalised before 1914 and so therefore, this research and these metrics aren’t even based on a true free economy.

Probably the closest snapshot of a free trade economy would be better measured in e-commerce. You only have to look at the rapid growth and profits from those who have less taxation and less limitation on their abilities to market and conduct business.

However, even the virtual world has tinges of manipulation as the currency used is still largely from central banks.

Nonsense. Neo-liberalism has actually stunted growth for most developing economies.

I suggest everyone read “Bad Samaritans” by Ha-Joon Chang

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991

The author pretty much demolishes the world is flat-free trade Orwellian doublespeak crapaganda.

If you want a specific case read:

And the Money Kept Rolling in (And Out): Wall Street, the Imf, And the Bankrupting of Argentina by Paul Blustein.