Political Theory

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

Jack Roberts — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:04:40 GMT

1. It lets cheap materials from abroad take the place of innovation

2. Ripping off inventors by letting the knowledge an inventor has to be exploited by other countries

People complain about globalisation as if it is a new phenomena. But international trade on a large scale has been occurring for 100s of years. People benefit from cheap materials. People want the fruits of their labour, no one wants to work, if we can work less and get cheaper and more goods then that is progress. It is true that imports do impact the local industry as if it did not undercut local goods of the same type then it would not be viable to import the goods. But the amount of different types of goods that are viable to import is generally as a result of exchange rate differences and government regulations, tariffs and custom duties. I am not saying that without government distortions it would never be viable to import goods and those goods would never undercut local industry. I am just saying that the government distortions contribute to a lot of those problems.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with opening up the market to an international market. Everyone can try and copy inventions from people not only in their own country but all around the world and thanks to the internet we can share ideas from around the world a lot quicker and easier than ever before. it realy is a great time to be in the business of innovation.

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

Anenome — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:17:13 GMT

Wheylous:

So to what level should we restrict trade? National? State? City? Should all individuals do everything for themselves? Any cutoff point you choose will be arbitrary.

Cells in your body trade nutrients even. We should criminalize that. Blood cells may no longer give oxygen to any other kind of cell! Blood-cell union!

Man, you could probably make one heck of an extended metaphor out of the cooperative processes of the body.

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

gotlucky — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 04:53:40 GMT

Malachi makes a good point. There is evidence that MissMapleLeaf is actually TronCat trolling us.

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

Malachi — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 04:00:51 GMT

http://mises.org/community/forums/t/32239.aspx

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

Wheylous — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:54:34 GMT

So to what level should we restrict trade? National? State? City? Should all individuals do everything for themselves? Any cutoff point you choose will be arbitrary.

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

Minarchist — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:44:20 GMT

No trade means no division of labor. No division of labor means that each person must be entirely self-sufficient, producing everything he consumes. Only a tiny fraction of the existing population could survive on this economic model, and would enjoy a standard of living similiar to what existed prior to the invention of agriculture. The OP is speaking about international trade, not trade in general, but this is only a difference of degree. Less trade means less division of labor means lower standards of living, etc. Protectionist trade policy benefits cartelized domestic industries at the expense of the consumer. That ordinary people like the OP (i.e. people who do not benefit but are rather harmed by protectionism) regularly advocate protectionism only goes to show how effective State propaganda can be.

As for intellectual property, it is not property at all, because it is not scarce. My using the knowledge to build X does not exclude you from using the knowledge to build X, therefore the knowledge to build X is not scarce, and therefore it cannot be property, as the only purpose of property is to define who has a right to use which scarce resources, so as to avud conflict over who gets to use those resources. It's the same for all forms of intellectual property: trade secrets, copyrights, etc. Intellectual property, rather, is a monopoly privilage granted by the State, which (like all monopoly privilages), benefits its holder at the expense of his competitors and of consumers. There's no important difference between the State saying only Bob can produce corn and only Jones can produce copies of a certain song.

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

Neodoxy — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:20:06 GMT

Trade in our day often frees up skilled labor to doing more productive tasks because the number of people who are performing unskilled labor rises. It also allows for an increase in innovation by increasing the skilled labor and entrepreneurial pool, as well as raising general incomes. In a free market the process you're talking about is quickly corrected, because we are soon brought to the point where profit cannot be reached by not innovating, although in the short run you actually do have a very legitimate point with point 1.

As for number 2, that's entirely wrong. The fact that new ideas circulate mean that new companies can get their hands on it and new people can expand upon it. This increases the rate of innovation. If only on person ever learned about calculus that there would be general mathematical innovation? No, through allowing maths and sciences to circulate and become part of general knowledge instead of being highly centralized, infinite productivity and innovation has been achieved.

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

cab21 — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:18:26 GMT

we need to pay people a minimun wage of 100000 a hour not to trade

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

Phi est aureum — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:13:57 GMT

Your posts get more ridiculous at time goes by...

but I assert that, without trade, progress and innovation are impossible.

Re: Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

fountainhead — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:11:03 GMT

If someone can take a brilliant invention and make it more affordable to everyone by using cheaper materials, I'd say that's progress.

Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

MissMapleLeaf — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 01:46:48 GMT

1. It lets cheap materials from abroad take the place of innovation

2. Ripping off inventors by letting the knowledge an inventor has to be exploited by other countries