Comments on: Instead of Getting Violent, Get Small For Economic Justice http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/ A new generation working toward a brighter tomorrow Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:30:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Ginter http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-499 David Ginter Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:42:44 +0000 http://globalshift.org/?p=2691#comment-499 I appreciate the comments and I think I should perhaps clear something up. If it seems that I "don't fully understand the comparitive advantage argument", that's because this piece isn't actually about comparitive advantage nor is it even really about free trade per se. I don't want to make unwarranted assumptions about you, because I don't know you personally and I don't know the reasoning behind some your statments here, but I think there may have been one or two specific paragraphs which you perceived as my dismissing comparitive advantage. This is not so. The point of the article was to show that beaurocratic attempts to "manage" a global economy are naive. An office building in Switzerland or anywhere else cannot, and should not, have such overwhelming influence on the distribution of resources. They cannot take account of all the externalities involved which, in the case of so many "free" (I use the word with sarcasm) trade arrangements, can make or break both a local and statewide economy. The area which I bring comparitive advantage to bear on the discussion was certainly not to dismiss it. I'm quite fond of Ricardo's equation. It was intended to draw a conceptual picture so that the general reader can understand the motivation behind such rationale. I did not develop the idea of comparitive advantage any further, because I felt that doing so would only distract from my main point - namely that of showing the short-sightedness of so many global institutions like the WTO who take power out of the hands of everyday people because they assume that they can manage a global economy more efficiently. That is also why I spoke favorably of micro-lending; it keeps power in the hands of the individuals that actually create an economy (they don't want me to just describe problems, but want me to offer solutions as ways that others can get involved). I'm inclined to disagree with you that Ricardo's argument seems lacking in any specific way. I think it's when institutions that are not actually involved in creating anything of value, try to impose upon those that do that we see what I called a misapplication of a sound economic principle. Failures of Ricardo's equation is a result of the right tool being in the wrong hands. Even allowing for the high-tariff context in which the idea originated, we can see that his equation should be one of DEscription and not an economic form of CONscription. Quite obviously their is much to say regarding the roles and uses of comparitive advantage, but I don't feel compelled to go into the details of them since again, this was not actually about comparitive advantage as such. I might write a few articles that go into more details of something like comparitive advantage, but I also have to pay attention to the fact that this is not an academic forum. I try to inform people without weighing them down with too much information. I try to keep it simple for the most part. If I misread you statements or if my attempts to clear things up were unsuccessful then please let me know. I welcome additional points of view and I think the extra information provided by insightful comments is a great thing for anyone that reads the articles. What I don't think is very constructive, is people making assumptions about me based on incomplete information. I appreciate the comments and I think I should perhaps clear something up. If it seems that I “don’t fully understand the comparitive advantage argument”, that’s because this piece isn’t actually about comparitive advantage nor is it even really about free trade per se. I don’t want to make unwarranted assumptions about you, because I don’t know you personally and I don’t know the reasoning behind some your statments here, but I think there may have been one or two specific paragraphs which you perceived as my dismissing comparitive advantage. This is not so. The point of the article was to show that beaurocratic attempts to “manage” a global economy are naive. An office building in Switzerland or anywhere else cannot, and should not, have such overwhelming influence on the distribution of resources. They cannot take account of all the externalities involved which, in the case of so many “free” (I use the word with sarcasm) trade arrangements, can make or break both a local and statewide economy.
The area which I bring comparitive advantage to bear on the discussion was certainly not to dismiss it. I’m quite fond of Ricardo’s equation. It was intended to draw a conceptual picture so that the general reader can understand the motivation behind such rationale. I did not develop the idea of comparitive advantage any further, because I felt that doing so would only distract from my main point – namely that of showing the short-sightedness of so many global institutions like the WTO who take power out of the hands of everyday people because they assume that they can manage a global economy more efficiently. That is also why I spoke favorably of micro-lending; it keeps power in the hands of the individuals that actually create an economy (they don’t want me to just describe problems, but want me to offer solutions as ways that others can get involved).
I’m inclined to disagree with you that Ricardo’s argument seems lacking in any specific way. I think it’s when institutions that are not actually involved in creating anything of value, try to impose upon those that do that we see what I called a misapplication of a sound economic principle. Failures of Ricardo’s equation is a result of the right tool being in the wrong hands. Even allowing for the high-tariff context in which the idea originated, we can see that his equation should be one of DEscription and not an economic form of CONscription.
Quite obviously their is much to say regarding the roles and uses of comparitive advantage, but I don’t feel compelled to go into the details of them since again, this was not actually about comparitive advantage as such. I might write a few articles that go into more details of something like comparitive advantage, but I also have to pay attention to the fact that this is not an academic forum. I try to inform people without weighing them down with too much information. I try to keep it simple for the most part.
If I misread you statements or if my attempts to clear things up were unsuccessful then please let me know. I welcome additional points of view and I think the extra information provided by insightful comments is a great thing for anyone that reads the articles. What I don’t think is very constructive, is people making assumptions about me based on incomplete information.

]]> By: The Environment and Free Trade | GlobalShift http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-472 The Environment and Free Trade | GlobalShift Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:28:19 +0000 http://globalshift.org/?p=2691#comment-472 [...] Ginter wrote an excellent entry last week explaining how the World Trade Order (WTO) undermines local economies by placing power [...] [...] Ginter wrote an excellent entry last week explaining how the World Trade Order (WTO) undermines local economies by placing power [...]

]]> By: Mark Griffith http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-471 Mark Griffith Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:20:59 +0000 http://globalshift.org/?p=2691#comment-471 . It's true that Ricardo's argument for comparitive advantage in free trade seems lacking somehow. Many economists agree on this, but I've seen no evidence that anyone - certainly not Mohammad Yunis - actually "understands" why Ricardo's mathematical equation arguing for free trade doesn't always seem to capture the whole character of trade. Ricardo's own original numerical example, an idealised trade between England and Portugal composed only of cloth and wine, was in terms of that period, development-neutral. Again, many economists believe that levels of development between countries marks the Achilles Heel of the argument, but have not yet convincingly shown why or how. Micro-lending is an excellent thing, definitely to be encouraged, but people like the author of this piece who don't fully understand the comparitive advantage argument don't help their case by breezily dismissing it as if they did. If he _does_ understand, a Nobel prize in economics awaits this author if he cares to spell out the flaw in Ricardo's case in detail. .

It’s true that Ricardo’s argument for comparitive advantage in free trade seems lacking somehow. Many economists agree on this, but I’ve seen no evidence that anyone – certainly not Mohammad Yunis – actually “understands” why Ricardo’s mathematical equation arguing for free trade doesn’t always seem to capture the whole character of trade. Ricardo’s own original numerical example, an idealised trade between England and Portugal composed only of cloth and wine, was in terms of that period, development-neutral.

Again, many economists believe that levels of development between countries marks the Achilles Heel of the argument, but have not yet convincingly shown why or how.

Micro-lending is an excellent thing, definitely to be encouraged, but people like the author of this piece who don’t fully understand the comparitive advantage argument don’t help their case by breezily dismissing it as if they did. If he _does_ understand, a Nobel prize in economics awaits this author if he cares to spell out the flaw in Ricardo’s case in detail.

]]> By: Twitted by toxicafunk http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-468 Twitted by toxicafunk Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:02:46 +0000 http://globalshift.org/?p=2691#comment-468 [...] This post was Twitted by toxicafunk [...] [...] This post was Twitted by toxicafunk [...]

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-442 uberVU - social comments Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:01:37 +0000 http://globalshift.org/?p=2691#comment-442 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by truebusiness: Protests against WTO get violent, but micro-lending might be a better way towards economic justice #business http://bit.ly/5zwiJM... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by truebusiness: Protests against WTO get violent, but micro-lending might be a better way towards economic justice #business http://bit.ly/5zwiJM...

]]> By: David Ginter http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-441 David Ginter Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:47:50 +0000 http://globalshift.org/?p=2691#comment-441 I don't think the WTO's failures are an indictment of capitalism. The corporations that participate might be "capitalistic", but without governments looking out for their corporate interests they wouldn't be allowed to exploit natural and human resources. That's corporatism. If it were based on genuine, private free trade, coporations wouldn't be invited into a community unless they could prove that it was actually going to be a mutually beneficial relationship. Capitalism cannot succeed if both individual and property rights are superceded by governments and corporations cozying up together - which is what the WTO represents. I don’t think the WTO’s failures are an indictment of capitalism. The corporations that participate might be “capitalistic”, but without governments looking out for their corporate interests they wouldn’t be allowed to exploit natural and human resources. That’s corporatism. If it were based on genuine, private free trade, coporations wouldn’t be invited into a community unless they could prove that it was actually going to be a mutually beneficial relationship. Capitalism cannot succeed if both individual and property rights are superceded by governments and corporations cozying up together – which is what the WTO represents.

]]> By: Preston Smith http://www.globalshift.org/2009/11/29/instead-of-getting-violent-get-small-for-economic-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-439 Preston Smith Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:16:01 +0000 http://globalshift.org/?p=2691#comment-439 This is an excellent article. I feel the WTO and how they dictate our world economy is not talked about enough. As you yourself put it, economic growth does not equal economic progress. To merely base a system on efficiency degrades lots of other factors that affect the welfare of our world. How about we start worshiping something other than capitalism? This is an excellent article. I feel the WTO and how they dictate our world economy is not talked about enough. As you yourself put it, economic growth does not equal economic progress. To merely base a system on efficiency degrades lots of other factors that affect the welfare of our world. How about we start worshiping something other than capitalism?

]]>