Young Britons Have Turned Liberal, Both Socially And Economically

[PopGun]

The freedom to say no and to choose starvation, is still an important freedom.

Reminds me of those "Do or die" challenges when I was 14....

The socialists had their day, the libreals will soon have there's. I just dread to think what the next lunacy to be bestowed upon us will be. Probably the worst of everything instead of the bits which may actually make sense. It isn't just the the 'socialists' who dwell in utopian dreamworlds.

Edited June 4, 2013 by PopGun

[wonderpup]

Of course a poor worker in a poor country has much fewer choices = less freedom, than a rich person in a rich country. I think we can all agree with that, obviously. But that is exactly why I wrote:

So you argue that freedom of choice is relative and impacted by the context in which the choice is made- I agree.

However this is not the claim I am contesting.

The claim that I am contesting is that the freedom to choose = liberty- it does not. A slave is 'free' to choose not to work for his master- he can say no. But this freedom does not mean he exists in a state of liberty or that his human rights are protected. Far from it- should he choose not to work the consequences for him are likely to be dire and possibly fatal.

So the mere ability to choose between two alternate courses of action does not in itself equate to freedom- which is the core claim of the Neo Liberal cult. They argue that should I 'freely choose' to work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop for a pittance then this is liberty in action- this is the free market protecting my freedom.

I say this is humbug- if that were true then every slave who chose to work instead being beaten to death was a free man.

[Tired of Waiting]

So you argue that freedom of choice is relative and impacted by the context in which the choice is made- I agree.

However this is not the claim I am contesting.

The claim that I am contesting is that the freedom to choose = liberty- it does not. A slave is 'free' to choose not to work for his master- he can say no. But this freedom does not mean he exists in a state of liberty or that his human rights are protected. Far from it- should he choose not to work the consequences for him are likely to be dire and possibly fatal.

So the mere ability to choose between two alternate courses of action does not in itself equate to freedom- which is the core claim of the Neo Liberal cult. They argue that should I 'freely choose' to work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop for a pittance then this is liberty in action- this is the free market protecting my freedom.

I say this is humbug- if that were true then every slave who chose to work instead being beaten to death was a free man.

Absolute freedom? Nobody says that. That's a straw-man. I suggest we concentrate on what matters: to improve the human condition. Agree? So, for that, we need development, and liberal democracies is the best system. Don't you agree? Or would you argue for any other system? If so, which one?

.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Tired of Waiting

[wonderpup]

The trading might have been free (as in without state control) but the product wasn't, so calling it a "free market" is to deliberately taint it by association.

You misunderstand- the slave trade meets every criteria for free trade- it involves buyers and sellers freely making and refusing offers, merchandise was exchanged and deals made- no one was forced to sell or forced to buy- this is free trade. Price discovery was in place and regulation was virtually non existent.

In fact the slave trade is a textbook example of a non regulated market that functioned extremely well for 400 years. The fact that the product was human slaves has no bearing on the mechanics of the trade itself- it functioned perfectly and was entirely legal in it's day.

And had The Economist been published in that era it would have been writing in it's defence and arguing against any attempt to control it or shut it down. It was a legal, profitable and respectable business- and proves beyond doubt that free trade and human oppression can happily coexist for centuries.

The fact that today we find that trade morally unacceptable does not negate the fact that it was-in it's day- a perfectly legal free trade business.

They are not a complete defence, and I'm not sure anyone has argued that they were.

It is no defence at all- as millions of African Slaves would no doubt confirm had they the chance.

I've not heard this claim made.

You yourself have made such a claim in the previous paragraph above. You perpetuate the idea that free trade somehow inherently protects human liberty- it does not.

That's a rather blinkered viewpoint. Free markets can promote wider freedoms and guarantee those already existing, but they do not automatically lead to utopia. But then nobody claimed they would.

Free markets can bring wealth to some- which can increase their freedoms- but they can also promote the exploitation of others. As to existing rights- the free market is most often cited as cause to remove those due to it's competitive nature.

Freedom is not a binary state

A fact not recognised by the binary thinkers of the Neo Liberal Cult who insist that any choice- no matter constrained- is proof of liberty. Ask them if the wages and conditions of the third world sweatshops are fair and they will reply- 'Those people chose to work in those sweatshops- so the question of fair and unfair does not arise- it was their free choice.'

So can we say of the slave that he chose to work for his master so therefore the question of the fairness or unfairness of slavery does not arise? After all he could have said no- he could have sat down and refused to work- so I guess it was his free choice to do so-or so we must assume.

Edited June 4, 2013 by wonderpup

[mfp123]

So you argue that freedom of choice is relative and impacted by the context in which the choice is made- I agree.

However this is not the claim I am contesting.

The claim that I am contesting is that the freedom to choose = liberty- it does not. A slave is 'free' to choose not to work for his master- he can say no. But this freedom does not mean he exists in a state of liberty or that his human rights are protected. Far from it- should he choose not to work the consequences for him are likely to be dire and possibly fatal.

So the mere ability to choose between two alternate courses of action does not in itself equate to freedom- which is the core claim of the Neo Liberal cult. They argue that should I 'freely choose' to work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop for a pittance then this is liberty in action- this is the free market protecting my freedom.

I say this is humbug- if that were true then every slave who chose to work instead being beaten to death was a free man.

i think your getting ahead of yourself on what you believe freedom to choose and liberty means. its only you really thats equating free trade with full and absolute liberty.

the liberal idea is that free trade increases liberty, it never proposes free trade as absolute liberty at all. never. no one has ever said absolute liberty for humanity is defined by your ability to trade.

if i say do you want to be shot or hung which liberal "cult" thinker is arguing that makes you free?

youre looking at the idea of free trade and its relationship with liberty with tunnel vision if you do.

the claim youre contesting is an incorrect claim.

[wonderpup]

Wrong. The slave is not free to refuse to work, that is what makes him a slave.

This is not correct- the slave is totally free to refuse to work- what he is not free to do is avoid the consequnces of exercising this freedom.

But according to the Neo Liberal view point that slave is in fact freely choosing to work- just as the person who takes a job in a sweatshop is freely choosing to work 14 hours a day in a deathtrap factory for a pittance.

Their claim is that the act of choosing in itself is irrefutable proof that liberty has been exercised.

Now you might wish to claim of the slave that the context of his choice meant that he was not really free to choose- and I would agree with you- but the same claim could be made for the sweatshop worker- he too is faced with very negative outcomes if he refuses to accept the conditions on offer.

So to pretend that those choosing to accept such conditions are making a free choice is a grotesque distortion of reality- a distortion that serves to justify those very conditions and even present them as an opportunity.

But as I said- ask these people if it's acceptable for workers to be exploited in this way and they will reply- 'Well- those people freely choose to accept those jobs- they could have said no'

Which is true- just as the slave could have said no- does that mean that in saying yes the slave was excercising his liberty? I don't think it does- at least not liberty as most people understand the term.

[wonderpup]

Absolute freedom? Nobody says that. That's a straw-man. I suggest we concentrate in what matters: to improve the human condition. Agree? So, for that, we need development, and liberal democracies is the best system. Don't you agree? Or would you argue for any other system? If so, which one?

Actually absolute freedom of choice is indeed the claim made- implicitly at least.

Think about the argument most often advanced by the Neo Liberals whenever anyone questions the more murky aspects of globlal free trade- point to the exploitation of third world workers by rich western corporations and they will reach for the standard defence- "But those workers freely choose to work for those companies under the terms and conditions on offer'.

So the claim is that the people involved are acting from a postion of absoslute freedom of choice when they sign those employment contracts- so much so that their decision to sign them is in itself irrefutable proof that they did so freely.

In other words the terms and conditions on offer must be acceptable because those who accept them are free to reject them- they are deemed to have absolute freedom of choice- that is the argument that is made.

In effect the claim is that the act of choosing in itself guarantees complete freedom of choice- but if that were correct then the slave who chooses servitude over death can also be claimed to have made a free choice to labour in his masters fields- which is nonsense.

In the real world choices are constrained by many factors- so we cannot simply argue that because a man signs a contract to work in atrocious conditions for meagre pay that in doing so he was acting free from constraint- yet that is precisely what is being claimed.

Also I note that you accept without question the 'industrial revolution' meme in relation to third word workers- as if free market capitalism were a sort of morality play in which one progressed to prosperity through a series of steps, starting with squalid sweatshop exploitation and through perseverance and moral fortitude eventually reaching the dizzy peaks of the west german factory worker.

I suggest that this construct is little more than propaganda on the part of the corporations who benefit from cheap labour and that-in reality- there is no reason at all for a worker who manufactures a product that sells for hundreds of pounds in a western store should not be paid a fair price for his labour and have the right to work in decent conditions.

All this 'industrial revolution' stuff is pure mythology employed to justify the creaming off of profits by the shareholders and management- this is not the 19th century and capitalism is not an economic manifestation of the pilgrims progress in which prosperity is earned through a moral journey of suffering and redemption.

Those third world workers are creating value now- and so should share in it's benefits now- not at some future date when their suffering has somehow earned them the right to do so.

Edited June 4, 2013 by wonderpup

[wonderpup]

i think your getting ahead of yourself on what you believe freedom to choose and liberty means. its only you really thats equating free trade with full and absolute liberty.

the liberal idea is that free trade increases liberty, it never proposes free trade as absolute liberty at all. never. no one has ever said absolute liberty for humanity is defined by your ability to trade.

if i say do you want to be shot or hung which liberal "cult" thinker is arguing that makes you free?

youre looking at the idea of free trade and its relationship with liberty with tunnel vision if you do.

the claim youre contesting is an incorrect claim.

The claim I am contesting is that free trade is always and everywhere a source of freedom and liberty- this is not true. Free trade can also be a source of bondage and oppression- the slave trade being a clear example of this fact.

More specifically I contest the simplistic notion that the ability to say no equates to liberty-it does not. A slave can say no and suffer the consequences.

But only a fool would argue that this makes him a free man-or that his liberty was intact. So the 'freedom' to say no does not = liberty.

So to justify some of the dire working conditions and wages we see around the world as being the free choice of the people who endure them is both an insult to them and an insult to our intelligence.

[mfp123]

The claim I am contesting is that free trade is always and everywhere a source of freedom and liberty- this is not true. Free trade can also be a source of bondage and oppression- the slave trade being a clear example of this fact.

More specifically I contest the simplistic notion that the ability to say no equates to liberty-it does not. A slave can say no and suffer the consequences.

But only a fool would argue that this makes him a free man-or that his liberty was intact. So the 'freedom' to say no does not = liberty.

So to justify some of the dire working conditions and wages we see around the world as being the free choice of the people who endure them is both an insult to them and an insult to our intelligence.

trading in slaves can be done within a free trade environment, as it was 100's of years ago. however, it was not the act of free trade that created the bondage between the slave and the master. that relationship existed outside the act of free trade. the act of free trade did not make him a slave. if the slave was not traded, he was still a slave.

if i banned the slave trade, he is still a slave.

so youre associating the free trade of slaves as though it was the free trade element that defined the slave, when it didnt.

the relationship between the slave and his master is not free trade. the relationship between the employee and employer on the other hand is.

if i removed the master the slave would have more liberty. if i removed the factory and its poor conditions, the employee has gained no liberty.

Edited June 5, 2013 by mfp123

[SpectrumFX]

As long as we ignore the consequences of his refusal we can define the slave as freely choosing to do his masters bidding.

If the slave is rational he won''t ignore the consequences. He knows that the actual best thing for him is to stop being a slave, but that option has been removed from him by force.

If your whole argument is based upon ignoring the consequences of actions, then its not really a valid scenario. Sane people make decisions by considering the potential consequenses of their actions.

[Tired of Waiting]

Actually absolute freedom of choice is indeed the claim made- implicitly at least.

Think about the argument most often advanced by the Neo Liberals whenever anyone questions the more murky aspects of globlal free trade- point to the exploitation of third world workers by rich western corporations and they will reach for the standard defence- "But those workers freely choose to work for those companies under the terms and conditions on offer'.

So the claim is that the people involved are acting from a postion of absoslute freedom of choice when they sign those employment contracts- so much so that their decision to sign them is in itself irrefutable proof that they did so freely.

In other words the terms and conditions on offer must be acceptable because those who accept them are free to reject them- they are deemed to have absolute freedom of choice- that is the argument that is made.

In effect the claim is that the act of choosing in itself guarantees complete freedom of choice- but if that were correct then the slave who chooses servitude over death can also be claimed to have made a free choice to labour in his masters fields- which is nonsense.

In the real world choices are constrained by many factors- so we cannot simply argue that because a man signs a contract to work in atrocious conditions for meagre pay that in doing so he was acting free from constraint- yet that is precisely what is being claimed.

Please, nobody argues that a democracy generates freedom from reality. Please stop wasting y/our time with that silly argument. What is important is how to develop countries and reduce poverty, increasing their choices/options/freedom and quality of life.

Also I note that you accept without question the 'industrial revolution' meme in relation to third word workers- as if free market capitalism were a sort of morality play in which one progressed to prosperity through a series of steps, starting with squalid sweatshop exploitation and through perseverance and moral fortitude eventually reaching the dizzy peaks of the west german factory worker.

I suggest that this construct is little more than propaganda on the part of the corporations who benefit from cheap labour and that-in reality- there is no reason at all for a worker who manufactures a product that sells for hundreds of pounds in a western store should not be paid a fair price for his labour and have the right to work in decent conditions.

All this 'industrial revolution' stuff is pure mythology employed to justify the creaming off of profits by the shareholders and management- this is not the 19th century and capitalism is not an economic manifestation of the pilgrims progress in which prosperity is earned through a moral journey of suffering and redemption.

Those third world workers are creating value now- and so should share in it's benefits now- not at some future date when their suffering has somehow earned them the right to do so.

There are loads of data charting world development. If you are genuinely interested in helping, please start by doing some research.

Just a quick example:

There are loads more on the net. Please be intellectually honest and do invest a day or two researching the issue. The United Nations and the World Bank also have lots of data, not only on economics but on quality of life as well.

.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Tired of Waiting

[Traktion]

The claim I am contesting is that free trade is always and everywhere a source of freedom and liberty- this is not true. Free trade can also be a source of bondage and oppression- the slave trade being a clear example of this fact.

More specifically I contest the simplistic notion that the ability to say no equates to liberty-it does not. A slave can say no and suffer the consequences.

But only a fool would argue that this makes him a free man-or that his liberty was intact. So the 'freedom' to say no does not = liberty.

So to justify some of the dire working conditions and wages we see around the world as being the free choice of the people who endure them is both an insult to them and an insult to our intelligence.

Having freedom is to be free from the tyranny of others, not of nature. No one can promise the latter, but they can help you escape the former.

[Traktion]

I agree- but that straw man is the one I am attacking, not defending.

As I pointed out- the international slave trade was a free market- buyers and sellers of slaves were free to trade with little or no interference or regulation- so it's clear that free markets do not in any way act as a defence of human liberty or freedom- yet this is the claim constantly made by the neo liberals.

Free markets can happily coexist will all manner of illiberal and oppressive activities- so to insist that they somehow promote freedom and liberty is pure propaganda- that's the straw man here.

If I stole your car stereo and sold it to someone else, would you assert that it was a 'free market' too?

[Tired of Waiting]

Having freedom is to be free from the tyranny of others, not of nature. No one can promise the latter, but they can help you escape the former.

Update: Newsnight had a report on it, this past Thursday:

16min 50sec in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03674zp/Newsnight_27_06_2013/

[Executive Sadman]

Reminds me of those "Do or die" challenges when I was 14....

The socialists had their day, the libreals will soon have there's. I just dread to think what the next lunacy to be bestowed upon us will be. Probably the worst of everything instead of the bits which may actually make sense. It isn't just the the 'socialists' who dwell in utopian dreamworlds.

Progressive is the new buzz word. As in progressively ******ing you over with all new and improved rhetoric and propaganda.

[wonderpup]

trading in slaves can be done within a free trade environment, as it was 100's of years ago. however, it was not the act of free trade that created the bondage between the slave and the master. that relationship existed outside the act of free trade. the act of free trade did not make him a slave. if the slave was not traded, he was still a slave.

if i banned the slave trade, he is still a slave.

so youre associating the free trade of slaves as though it was the free trade element that defined the slave, when it didnt.

I am not claiming that free trade causes slavery- slaves existed long before the idea of free trade was invented. What I am saying is that it's perfectly possible to have a free trade in human slaves-as was historically the case in the past- so the idea that free trade acts as a guarantor of human liberty is manifestly not true.

The slave trade was a legal free market in which buyers and sellers were free to accept or reject offers made and very little state regulation was involved- and I have no doubt at all that had the Economist magazine been published in this period with it's current free trade agenda it would have strongly defended this legal free enterprise activity and condemned any attempt to regulate it or abolish it.

the relationship between the slave and his master is not free trade. the relationship between the employee and employer on the other hand is.

Yet the slave is free to refuse the offer of work made by his master- and accept the consequences. Just as the worker desperate for work to feed his family is free to refuse the offer made by his employer- and accept the conseqeunces.

The problem is that if we define a 'free choice' as simply the ability to accept or reject an offer made then we are forced to conclude that a slave is making a free choice- since his ability to say no cannot ultimately be removed from him.

The reason we all recognise that a slave is not making a free choice is because we understand that his choice was made under extreme duress and was therefore not a valid free choice.

But exactly the same could be said of a desperate man seeking to feed himself and his family- should he agree to work for a pittance in extremely dangerous conditions can he be said to have made a free choice? Was not his 'free choice' also made under extreme duress?

So to claim-as the neo liberals do- that simply having the ability to say no means you have made a free choice is an insult to the intelligence- because in the real world that choice may have been subject to massive pressures arising from the context in which it was made.

Even the most abject of slaves retains the theoretical ability to refuse to work- but having that theoretical ability does not make him a free man. Or if it does than there is no way to distinguish the neo liberal concept of slavery from the neo liberal concept of liberty.

[wonderpup]

If the slave is rational he won''t ignore the consequences. He knows that the actual best thing for him is to stop being a slave, but that option has been removed from him by force.

If your whole argument is based upon ignoring the consequences of actions, then its not really a valid scenario. Sane people make decisions by considering the potential consequenses of their actions.

So in your view a slave who agrees to work is not making a free choice because he knows that the consequences of not working will be extremely negative- and I agree with this view.

But the same argument can be applied to a man desperate for work to feed himself and his family- the consequences for him of refusing a low paid and dangerous job would be equally negative- yet according to the Neo Liberal doctrine this man is making a free choice to accept the wages and conditions on offer.

So by this standard of liberty there is no way to distinguish the choices of a slave from the choices of a free man- both agree to the terms and conditions of their work- so does this mean that a slave is a free man? Or does it mean that those who accept those low paid dangerous jobs are slaves?

Clearly this simplistic model that liberty consists of the freedom to choose is inadequate- the issue is not merely choice, but the context in which that choice is made.

Yet ask any member of the Neo liberal cult if those low paid workers are slaves they will say no, of course not- after all they freely chose to do those jobs under those conditions.

To which I can only reply- well those slaves freely chose to do the work they did- so how do we tell the difference between the 'free choice' of the sweatshop worker and the 'free choice' of the slave?

[wonderpup]

Please, nobody argues that a democracy generates freedom from reality. Please stop wasting y/our time with that silly argument. What is important is how to develop countries and reduce poverty, increasing their choices/options/freedom and quality of life.

You are not correct- the claim made by the Neo liberals is clear- the freedom to say no to an offer is-in itself- proof of liberty- it is this 'freedom' they claim is nurtured and defended by the free market.

Unfortunately for them the freedom to say no also exists for a slave- but no one claims that this freedom is proof of his liberty.

You talk about freedom from 'reality'- but this simply begs the question of whose reality? The reality of the slave was defined by his master- and the reality of the third world sweatshop worker is defined by the corporations who exploit him.

Reality-like liberty- turns out to be a far more slippery idea that it first appears.

If you were serious about improving the lives of the workers at the bottom you would cease to propagate this notion that such workers must complete some moral evolution in order to deserve a fair share of the value they create. If they are creating value now then they should benefit from that value now- not at the end of some quasi moral process through which they 'earn the right' to that value.

This entire 'industrial revolution' fantasy in which the poor must somehow 'earn' the right to gain a fair share of their labour is humbug. If a man works in factory that creates a training shoe that sells for hundreds of pounds then he should get a fair share of that value today- not have to wait until he has passed through this bizzare 'industrial revolution' morality play- what a truly strange notion that is.

You have swallowed hook line and sinker the propaganda of those who seek to justify exploitation by invoking a vision of 19th century Britain where monochrome people worked in monochrome factories- as if there were this curious moral process by which those people dragged themselves up to the point where they finally 'deserved' to earn a decent wage.

What about paying a decent wage right now?

[Tired of Waiting]

(...) the idea that free trade acts as a guarantor of human liberty is manifestly not true.

Necessity_and_sufficiency

(...) I have no doubt at all that had the Economist magazine been published in this period with it's current free trade agenda it would have strongly defended this legal free enterprise activity and condemned any attempt to regulate it or abolish it.

They were against it: August 1843 http://www.economist.com/node/1873493

(...)

But exactly the same could be said of a desperate man seeking to feed himself and his family- should he agree to work for a pittance in extremely dangerous conditions can he be said to have made a free choice? Was not his 'free choice' also made under extreme duress?

So to claim-as the neo liberals do- that simply having the ability to say no means you have made a free choice is an insult to the intelligence- because in the real world that choice may have been subject to massive pressures arising from the context in which it was made.

You are absolutely correct there. Poor people in poor countries have very few options. But that is precisely why development is so important. And the best way to develop a country is with free trade. The world is developing fast. See this video:

If you honestly wants to help the poor in poor countries you should campaign against (our) protectionism. That is what harms them most.

[mfp123]

I am not claiming that free trade causes slavery- slaves existed long before the idea of free trade was invented. What I am saying is that it's perfectly possible to have a free trade in human slaves-as was historically the case in the past- so the idea that free trade acts as a guarantor of human liberty is manifestly not true.

The slave trade was a legal free market in which buyers and sellers were free to accept or reject offers made and very little state regulation was involved- and I have no doubt at all that had the Economist magazine been published in this period with it's current free trade agenda it would have strongly defended this legal free enterprise activity and condemned any attempt to regulate it or abolish it.

Yet the slave is free to refuse the offer of work made by his master- and accept the consequences. Just as the worker desperate for work to feed his family is free to refuse the offer made by his employer- and accept the conseqeunces.

The problem is that if we define a 'free choice' as simply the ability to accept or reject an offer made then we are forced to conclude that a slave is making a free choice- since his ability to say no cannot ultimately be removed from him.

The reason we all recognise that a slave is not making a free choice is because we understand that his choice was made under extreme duress and was therefore not a valid free choice.

But exactly the same could be said of a desperate man seeking to feed himself and his family- should he agree to work for a pittance in extremely dangerous conditions can he be said to have made a free choice? Was not his 'free choice' also made under extreme duress?

So to claim-as the neo liberals do- that simply having the ability to say no means you have made a free choice is an insult to the intelligence- because in the real world that choice may have been subject to massive pressures arising from the context in which it was made.

Even the most abject of slaves retains the theoretical ability to refuse to work- but having that theoretical ability does not make him a free man. Or if it does than there is no way to distinguish the neo liberal concept of slavery from the neo liberal concept of liberty.

no one said free trade is the guarantor of liberty, only you say that, and then make the claim it isnt true. free trade however does not deny you liberty.

as i say whether you have free trade or no trade of slaves, he is still a slave. its not the free trade element that has denied liberty.

when you are talking about slavery you are not considering the relationship. for you to be a slave you need to have a master.

the master treats you as their property whereas the factory owner cares not what your plight is, they have no responsibility to you. they are not acting upon you should you refuse. whether you have a family to feed, or are living at home with your rich parents is irrelevant to the relationship with the factory owner. you go your separate ways.

your plight of having to feed your family is a totally separate relationship. you could argue its actually your family that is turning you into a slave for making you feel you have to provide for them and forcing your hand.

with a master slave relationship they are directly affecting you should you disobey. i.e whatever choice you make as a slave the master will act in both circumstances.

not giving you something e.g pay you is different to doing something to you should not take up the offer.

Edited June 30, 2013 by mfp123

[shipbuilder]

On the Economist's linguistic spaghetti and the use of the word 'liberal'.....

http://geoliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/liberating-liberty-libertarians-and-their-linguistic-land-grab/

So much time wasted on this thread and others while the simple truths laid out in that link are ignored.

Every debate about freedom, ideologies, equality or political parties without reference to land and resources (i.e. most on here) are simply a waste of time.

[Tired of Waiting]

(...)

If you were serious about improving the lives of the workers at the bottom you would cease to propagate this notion that such workers must complete some moral evolution in order to deserve a fair share of the value they create. If they are creating value now then they should benefit from that value now- not at the end of some quasi moral process through which they 'earn the right' to that value.

This entire 'industrial revolution' fantasy in which the poor must somehow 'earn' the right to gain a fair share of their labour is humbug. If a man works in factory that creates a training shoe that sells for hundreds of pounds then he should get a fair share of that value today- not have to wait until he has passed through this bizzare 'industrial revolution' morality play- what a truly strange notion that is.

You have swallowed hook line and sinker the propaganda of those who seek to justify exploitation by invoking a vision of 19th century Britain where monochrome people worked in monochrome factories- as if there were this curious moral process by which those people dragged themselves up to the point where they finally 'deserved' to earn a decent wage.

What about paying a decent wage right now?

I'm not sure if you are consciously creating a strawman there, or if you are making an honest mistake. I have never said or thought that poor people in poor country need some "moral evolution in order to deserve" better pay. Of course they should be better paid. The question is how to get there. And history shows, and is still showing, again and again, that free trade is the best way for poor countries to develop, and that the best way to reduce domestic inequalities is via liberal democracies.

What other system have done a better job? Socialism? Righ-wing dictatorships? "Benign dictatorships"?

What other system is better?

[shipbuilder]

I'm not sure if you are consciously creating a strawman there, or if you are making an honest mistake. I have never said or thought that poor people in poor country need some "moral evolution in order to deserve" better pay. Of course they should be better paid. The question is how to get there. And history shows, and is still showing, again and again, that free trade is the best way for poor countries to develop, and that the best way to reduce domestic inequalities is via liberal democracies.

What other system have done a better job? Socialism? Righ-wing dictatorships? "Benign dictatorships"?

What other system is better?

The developing countries highlighted aren't benefitting as much from tree trade as they should, because of the issue of land and resource ownership.

This is being misinterpreted on one side of the argument as a failure of free trade and ignored on the other side of the argument as a valid concern.

[alexw]

Someone on another thread (can't find it now) made an excellent point.

He said he's come to the conclusion that the idea of 'free trade' and 'free markets' he has come to realise is as unrealistic as communism to the popular imagination. Everywhere you look it is rigged. The only time we proclaimed it to all and sundry (as America does today) was when we had the industry and the military might to open up those markets.

Trade is organised between people and vested parties, it doesn't just happen. The British try and pretend it does and wonder why they are losing. Fair play to Cameron, he finds time to support trade missions - something that Labour never did. Unfortunately, we have f*ck all to sell any more. The place Britain is at is it needs more protectionism in order to allow businesses to develop....almost as though we were an undeveloped country.

The only area where there seems to be free markets these days is in labour.

You can see the obvious schizophrenic nature of the "free" trade system by what is including and not included in these "free" trade agreements. There is all manner of protections written in for large corporations and businesses, but outside of that these agreements remain eerily silent on everything else. Thus we don't have free trade, though lots of people here say we do and advocate more of the same, as if its for our benefit.

The reality is that we have a global trade system written (as you rightly stated) for the benefit of vested parties (large businesses & corporations), who then put forward "look see we have free trade why are you complaining?" as a means to shut down any and all disagreement.

What people need to do is just laugh at these idiots and say "what free trade?"

[Tired of Waiting]

Someone on another thread (can't find it now) made an excellent point.

He said he's come to the conclusion that the idea of 'free trade' and 'free markets' he has come to realise is as unrealistic as communism to the popular imagination. Everywhere you look it is rigged. The only time we proclaimed it to all and sundry (as America does today) was when we had the industry and the military might to open up those markets.

Trade is organised between people and vested parties, it doesn't just happen. The British try and pretend it does and wonder why they are losing. Fair play to Cameron, he finds time to support trade missions - something that Labour never did. Unfortunately, we have f*ck all to sell any more. The place Britain is at is it needs more protectionism in order to allow businesses to develop....almost as though we were an undeveloped country.

The only area where there seems to be free markets these days is in labour.

Of course we don't have yet fully free trade, world-wide, but at each round of negotiations at the WTO's GATT we improve things a bit ( link ), not to mention loads of bilateral and regional agreements, like the EU, NAFTA, Mercosul, some is Asia, etc. ANd now there are talks about a NAFTA - EU trade agreement. Though these "rich countries only" trade areas carry a serious danger: the exclusion of poorer countries. That's why the GATTs are much more important for poor countries.

Britain has lots of comparative advantages, and just 1 major problem: property costs. If our productive sectors were not saddled so heavily with these fecking b@stards rentier parasites Britain would do very well indeed (see my sig and all that).