“Free Trade Doesn’t Work” (book review)

On 7/20/2010 2:23 PM, Me, …again! wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 10:25 pm, “Me, …again!” wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Jul 20, 3:06 pm, “Me, …again!” wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 3:52 am, “Me, …again!” wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>> Recently I have been such things about economics:
>>>
>>>>>>>> It is 10% theology, 10% fraud and 80% politics in such mathematical
>>>
>>> You all might want to re-read the following paragraph, by the way:
>>>
>>>>>>> Page 68:
>>>
>>>>>>> “Consider free trade, something on which most economists today
>>>>>>> agree.
>>
>> There is no such thing as free trade, for starters.
>
> Basically I agree, but the term “free trade” is used in two contexts: 1.
> as a desireable goal for the masses, as preached by so-called “free
> trade” economics, but the only real benefits go to the big corporations
> and “the rich,” and 2. in the larger context of whether there are actual
> win-win benefits to all parties, and here you can do google search on
> “myth of free trade” and get tons of hits.
>
> Those with
>> military advantage want free trade, meaning they should buy as cheap
>> as possible and sell as high as possible for as long as possible.
>
> Japan has no military advantage but they became, 1970s to 1990s+, second
> richest country on the planet. What advantage they had was alliance with
> USA to protect a capitalist economy (Japan’s) against China (a
> communist, totalitarian economy). In ten years, Japan will get absorbed
> by China.
>
>> Those with more money will do the same, by corrupting the bosses of
>> the poor side as comprehensively as possible. So, economics really
>> boils down to money and power poltiics.
>
> And, yes, unfortunately, we’re back to “power politics” as controlled by
> money interests.
>
>> The
>>>>>>> loss of American industry and jobs, as production of clothing items,
>>>>>>> televisions, computers, and many other goods and services shifts
>>>>>>> overseas, is
>>>>>>> disruptive and painful to many of the people who lose their jobs
>>>>>>> or are
>>>>>>> otherwise adversely affected.
>>
>> Really, this only shows that the leaders of American industry who fund
>> the politicians and are in bed with them care the proverbial rats’ a&*$?%s
>> for those deprived of jobs.
>
> I agree approximately 95%.
>
>> Their personal feelings in this regard, however,
>>>>>>> are considered by economists to be outside the bounds of economic
>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>> for the purposes of assessing the real economic benefits of free
>>>>>>> trade.”
>>
>> Sniff-sniff, it is thus every man and woman for himself or herself in
>> this cruel, cruel world. Now, who needed to be told this?
>
> 1. How much will this fate fuel an increase in crime? White collar
> crime? Hacker/ID theft crime?
>
>>> much else deleted to save space..
>>>
>>>>>>> “The greatest significance of Adam Smith to the economic history
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> world was not in any power of economic explanation but in offering a
>>>>>>> ‘scientific’ doctrine b which the many losers from all this
>>>>>>> radical change could
>>>>>>> be persuaded to accept their fate without active revolt….”
>>>
>>>>>> Sorta leaves out such fundamentals that I learnt such as:
>>>
>>>>>> 1. Price = Demand/Supply
>>>
>>>>> Everyone knows that stuff, its the stuff I quoted which is not in the
>>>>> usual economics books.
>>>
>>>> More like, everyone agrees, and then ignores. This equation becomes
>>>> very interesting when Demand becomes a function of political/media/etc
>>>> muscle and Supply prone to robbery, dumping, piracy factors.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I could go along with that line of thinking, too.
>>>
>>> Or, when demand is manipulated by advertising, PR, and marketing. I’d
>>> call
>>> it “mind control.”
>>
>> Meaning creating fake demand,
>
> Bingo!
>
>
> thus creating or raising the price of
>> useless or unwanted quantity, usually at the expense of some worthy
>> product.
>
> Bingo, Bingo!
>
>
>>>>>> 2. The law of diminishing returns. Classic example, putting more and
>>>>>> more fertiliser in a field. After a certain concentration, yield
>>>>>> drops.
>>>
>>>>> Nelson’s book is an overview of all of the major schools of
>>>>> thought, and a
>>>>> catalog of the inconsistencies, disagreements, and ommissions.
>>>
>>>>>> 3. The accelerator and multiplier effects of money in motion
>>>
>>>> heh-heh, all quiet what? Truly the accelerator and multiplier
>>>> theories in practice make all the difference between a developed
>>>> nation and a developing nation.
>>>
>>> And, yet, examples can be found, in medieval times, or even earlier,
>>> when
>>> a king could make decisions and cause society to organize itself for
>>> growth and prosperity. All without economists.
>>
>> Just getting people to work positively and in a healthy fashion,
>> making money move as fast as possible, make money reach deprived
>> areas, etc. Happens by increasing services, productivity increases,
>> efficiencies of scale, distribution systems, regulations for quality,
>> etc.
>
> Yes, more or less.
>
>>>>>> 4. The impact of control systems upon pricing, as a function of
>>>>>> social
>>>>>> need
>>>
>>>> It is exactly here that the equation I have given above becomes
>>>> engrossing. For instance, if the political establishment depends upon
>>>> the stupidity of the population for its survival,
>>>
>>> Which is usually the case…..
>>>
>>> it has to do away
>>>
>>>> with research folk. What to do, then? Put the price of research to
>>>> zero. How? Make demand zero, and supply infinite. In other words,
>>>> shut down your research labs, and outsource the technical work.
>>>
>>> The phrase which comes to my mind is: scientists on tap but not on top.
>>
>> Scientists gotta get sexier than the morons on TV, and put up a
>> fight.
>
> I tried for 10 years to get scientists together. Something in their
> temperment does not facilitate this. And, if you read C.P. Snow’s old
> essay: “The Two Cultures” (science vs. humanities) from 40-50 years ago,
> the divide is still there. The only guys who get together are
> CEO-executives who form lobbying groups to pressure politicians for
> favors to the executives/rich. Tragic.

Scientists get together at the banks when they cash their Government
grant checks.