Milton Friedman on Free Trade

[@WHATISUTUBE]

I study economics; I know what a trade deficit is. I'm saying that there's more to it than merely hoarding for hoarding's sake. People don't want a favorable balance of trade because they care about paper money. It's ultimately useless since it isn't backed by anything. It's the jobs behind it that politicians and the common man care about. It's indicative or a trend. I don't feel like this conversation will ever end, so I'll ask: your main point is that money is a commodity, right;nothing more?

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Yeah, that was it. Thanks for digging up the quote. I explained what a trade deficit was. What aspect of that do you disagree with again?

[@governmentdidit]

You seem to know a great deal about economics what are you favorite books? My favorite books on the subject are -Human Action -Boundaries of Order -Man, Economy and State What are yours?

[@XerathGamingChannel]

He's been dead for over a decade

[@harry-matakios1344]

TheSilvatianGamer not he’s not , liar

[@WHATISUTUBE]

overproduction is a natural process as the demand for a product goes up, as does its price. Without overproduction there would be no sign that the limit where supply meets demand has been reached. It's all individual actors that are discouraged as the price goes down of the product, there is no overarching body deciding how much is enough. It's akin to a blind man pouring water into a bucket, with the bucket at his feet. He can tell he's put too much water when it starts to spill over.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Well, obviously people would take the pension. Volunteer work doesn't pay; it doesn't put food on the table. As much as I'd love to help the homeless 24/7, I need to eat. And have a home to live in. As for money as a commodity, again, I understand where you're coming from, and are correct to an extent. But you can't possibly say it doesn't work as a trade medium. It is. First and foremost, at least. Honestly, it's not up to debate; it's an agreed upon item that has value and is accepted by selrs

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Same to you: you make a good comedy. I'd love to catch one of your shows.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

And yes, gift economies have never had to because such an 'economy' is inefficient. I again go to rational choice: if gift economies were the best form of social organization then they would have been the dominant form of organization, which amounts to nothing more than a free society in terms of prices. Family and helping the needy is one thing, they are circumstantial events.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

But my main point was that even IF a society did away with currency, WHAT purpose would it serve? I mean, honestly; not only would you have to look for someone that wants EXACTLY what you're trading, and has EXACTLY what you want, but a society tends to regress to a particular source of account and currency ANYWAY. You don't need to take my word for it: look to any society in history. They naturally created currencies; it has never been an instrument forced out of thin air.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

you're well within your rights to choose whichever candidate you wish to vote for. They simply need to get on the ballot, which is the harder part. But this has more to do with Democracies rather than historical record.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Lastly, public schools aren't free. If you want me to elaborate, they're free in that the individual doesn't have to directly pay into it as opposed to private schools, whereby there is a direct transaction. They're 'free' in that you pay for them through taxation...or not. The very poor pay no taxes.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

And what is work that matters? Who decides? People decide, through their own goals of self-enrichment. Because ultimately what matters is the well being of the individual. Are you telling me your well being and your own safety and life aren't your top priority? Would you be willing to give me all of your money to make me better off? Tell me what work is work that matters; in the grand scheme of things if the public feels that product A will make them better off than a company will invest in that

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Lastly: I don't understand what part of my argument is proclaiming that money isn't good. I just told you the resources that are purchased matter, while you're telling me that money itself matters. If you believe the resources are what should be traded, then that is impractical. Again, if I want a TV and have 10 skateboards to sell, I have to find someone that has exactly what I want for exactly what I have at exactly the quantity that is most convenient. It's terribly inefficient.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

I believe that smart phones have made people better off; and companies have responded to the public's demand for products that people want to purchase. The public at large is interested in themselves, so they purchase things that they feel are essential. Corporations hire people that have the skills to produce things that the public has decided matters. Your argument isnt against capitalism, but against what the public believes matters. Take it up with them.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

To be fair; Warren Buffet is merely one man. You can't say its indicative of a larger trend. He's somewhat left-leaning anyway, so we have to take that into account. And while I can understand where you're coming from and see the logic behind it, I'm saying that money is worthless as it isn't backed by anything. It's what you can do with it that matters.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

A little more to the point: I grew up in East NY; where more than half of the people live below the poverty line. Trust me, a lot of people pretty much deserve to be there since they have absolutely no skills or motivations to even acquire those skills, and would be low on the social ladder with or without capitalism anyway. I was never impeded from going to college; and by your logic, I should have been. Likewise, all the rich in the world aren't brilliant geniuses. Paris Hilton, etc.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

I wouldn't call it a commodity in practice. Currencies can be exchanged and traded in the foreign exchange market, but there is ACTUAL commodity currency. Without it being used as the source of exchange, its absolutely worthless. The Salvadorian colon is useless now. Well, actually, maybe there are some collectors...and the metal that it was made of might be worth something. My point is that by definition it isn't a commodity as it is useless if the US were to change over to another currency.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

As for trade deficits, it's partially about money. The issue is that foreigners have currency that can be sold off and flood the market, thereby increasing the price of imports. As well as some loss of jobs and industry at home since you keep importing. It's not necessarily about the currency as much as it is about jobs and foreigners owning more of your currency (bonds) that can flood the market and fuck up your own currencies exchange rate against others.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

As for gift economies: I'm saying, examples of mass social organization. If it were truly better then it would be the most logical choice. I'm a proponent of Rational Choice theory; people do what is in their best interest and is most rational to increase their output. If A is truly better than B then A would obviously be followed. Gift economies only work with small, tightly knit groups. It's all dependent on familiarity. It's not really a form of economic organization, it's pseudo.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

as an example: an entire niche in society has decided that ''organic'' food matters, and corporations have responded to that by producing such products. Some people think it isn't enough, and want food that is even more local, so there's another niche of small producers selling their wares.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

You seem to believe that without cash, there will no longer be classes. Which is foolish; classes aren't only comprised of wealth. Furthermore, even if you got rid of a standard of currency, classes would still exist based on the ACTUAL resources the currency got you to begin with! It's never been an impediment to consumption and development; without currency as a medium of exchange the only thing there will be is taking of property of goods by force. All you're doing is creating anarchy.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Again, you can't really use one person, Buffet, as an example of a trend. That's like me saying there's a trend of murderous news reporters because one was convicted of a crime. You misunderstand: people don't know what their next purchase will be. Just because people don't immediately spend their money and know exactly what they want at every moment doesn't mean that saving money for future purchases is hoarding. We want MANY purchases of future products, so we accumulate.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Secondly, I never said Egypt had a gift economy, I said it's the fairest society of all due to your belief that currency=inequality. I never said, claimed, or implied that it was a gift economy. I said early in its history it was a barter economy, or do you believe trading grain for livestock isn't bartering? Wikipedia is free, you know. Look up 'barter economy'

[@erincliff75]

He forgot to tell you about military action and the ENFORCEMENT that comes with a "free" market. Whoops.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Read it again; ''no one is professing that Capitalism is 100% morally just''; the problem here is that we have two different trains of thought. I'm a pragmatist, you're a perfectionist. You want the perfect system, whereas I see myself as wanting the most workable given limitations. And...there's nothing wrong with whaling. It's a long cultural tradition in Japan, and as long as whales are allowed to breed, I see no issue.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

''smallest economy that is autonomous...and possible'' I fixed that for you. As for which standard of living is higher, obviously if you get things for free you will have a higher standard of living. That isn't what I'm arguing. If we want the highest standard of living, then the government enslaving a few thousand people nad forcing them to give us free shit would be the greatest system ever. I'm arguing for the pragmatic, not the utopia and impossible that you're advocating.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

ehh...now you're taking a phrase 'making a living' and implying it equates to hoarding. My mother tells me she's making a living. She's a maid. Trust me, she isn't hoarding. I wish she were hoarding. Plenty of people say that phrase, and its because its true. Food costs money.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Wait...you're disagreeing with me. But...but that's impossible! Are...are you trolling! You must be trolling. I've never had anyone disagree with me ever in life! And yes, that is a trade deficit. When a country imports more than it exports. What's your point? Everyone agrees. Before you dig for a 8 year old quote, give me the context, because I remember you making an argument about accumulating wealth, and me telling you that trade defecits are bad because of their repricussions.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

But if someone was told they can accumulate, but never, EVER spend. EVER; then its all pointless. Money is only a means to an end. Its value decreases over time. Essentially, if you just sit on it you're losing value slowly. Investments slowly return value, at a faster rate than the decrease in the currencies worth. I don't know about Buffet, but if a rich man is doing nothing with his money then he's essentially becoming poorer over time.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

and I'd just like to point out that gift economies aren't really economies. They're pseudo economies. I mean...if you count a small family unit as an economy...and you sort of can...but it's impractical for the purposes of this discussion.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

I can KINDA understand what you're saying based on your views on money as a commodity. But you're under the false impression that money itself creates the inequalities; even without money inequalities can and will exist based on resources. The real inequality isn't in the currency, it's in resources. I can give a man 1 million USD's, but he will be the poorest around if I own all the resources. Money can be traded as a commodity, but the resources it purchases is where the true value is.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

It's a little more complicated than that. If there is an unfavorable trade balance, then foreign currencies go up in value due to the activities in the foreign exchange market whereby more of currency A is being bought, which increases demand and value, and decreases your own currencies value. Your devalued currency means that foreign investors invest in your borders through asset purchases, so there's a national component to it (us vs them). It's more complicated than mere hoarding.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

But all work is done voluntarily, so I don't know why it's worthwhile bringing that up in the first place. And people DO charge, even during disasters. Kindness like that usually comes at a person's expense, which is why that kindness is only rendered with surplus funds. Which is why the rich give the most; because of their surpluses. But focusing an entire economy on only giving without the means to accumulate surpluses makes it all moot since the incentive isn't there.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

As for my mother, let me see, I believe it was in the context of schooling and how you believed that if everyone got free schooling (I know I know, taxes, don't bring it up), like we do now, that we'd all be geniuses when I told you that mental curiosity and ingenuity is within and not LEARNED through school. I THINK that's what I said, and that my mother doesn't display such curiosity, schooling or not. Please summarize it terribly once more, troll. Trolls are people that disagree btw.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Hold on, if education were free then yes, more people would be 'educated', but my response was to the belief that we'd have more intellectuals and society as a whole would pivot forward. I forgot exactly WHAT the context was, but I do remember saying that the intellectually curious, with or without school will always seek knowledge. It's exactly what I did post-dropping out of high school. So you don't follow that line any further let me just say I eventually did finish and went off to college.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

And my mother: she never had the mental capacity or the inquisitiveness for science and technology anyway. You're making the assumption that there are a lot of low wage workers because they are being impeded, rather than them being appropriated as best as possible. My uncle also grew up with my mother in the same family, but he's a real estate agent. And I grew up in a Brooklyn ghetto, but am an economist. Nothing impedes people; they are appropriated as best as possible.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Lastly: critical thinking is when everyone accepts my divergent opinions and accepts them as fact! lol. You must be a joy to be around.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

As for capitalists: they are mere business owners. The vast majority, anyway. They don't understand their system because it's a naturally occurring system that has been observed rather than engineered by man (except for a few areas here and there). You say ''capitalists'' as if...well, it's like saying 'humans'. Are you saying there is an alternative? I profess my ignorance to gift economies, but from my overview its an exchange whereby no pay is received and...well, give me historical examples.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

So the point is to get rid of a capitalist class rather than classes? I can understand that, but this idea that there would be a class-less society if we got rid of money is absurd. Rulers of yesteryear never needed money to rule, they needed divine right or a long bloodline of rulers. Or just brute force. Which, without property rights and a state to protect such rights, just means that one claim to land is more 'valid' than another if person A can exact more force.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Last of all: way to lose your cool. No arguments left so you fall back on pure rage? Calm down; if you can't stand on your arguments then don't resort to blind rage and hatred. If you exceeded what you can come up with, then just relinquish the debate, bruh. You lost, dude. It's over.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

That's such a stupid ass proposition. Money is a good holder of value over the long term. Your money is still there after a year. The slice of pork you got for whatever you gave away for it will not be there, and can't be there. It's also a good way to keep account of things across the board: it's much harder to show value across if every person in their transactions uses different items. Even if you eliminated money, people would still do transactions, but it would be much harder.

[@whiteguy7583]

So, free trade is trade that doesnt have restrictions such as import duties, export bounties, domestic production subsidies, trade quotas, or import licenses. Anyway, our trade deals are a mix of free trade and protectionism, with America disproportionately supplying the free market, while other nations supply the protectionism. Anyway, i would argue that one of the primary causes of manufacturing job loss is due to our trade deficits. This year, under Trump, our deficit with China is up 7% and our overall trade deficit with Mexico is up 11%. Also, since China joined the WTO, our trade deficit with them has been over 3 trillion dollars. But, a big problem is currency manipulation, which lowers the costs of US imports and raises the cost of our exports. China. There are many others, but, China is crazy with it. So, your solution free traders is to? China utilizes subsidies, tariffs, and has these crazy restrictions on foreign companies that want to set up there (also have insane forced technology transfer rules). Also, you just want to let them dump their cheap steel. The USA should be a "manufacturing powerhouse that supplies high quality goods instead of having America be dominated by financial institutions who give high interest loans and manipulate capital markets to take wealth away from ordinary Americans." Additionally, do you also really think that these countries will have similar IP laws.? You think they want to have the same IP laws. Wow. Also, the number of long-term unemployed Americans (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) accounted for 23.8 of the unemployed. So, shouldnt take that into account if you want to negotiate a trade deal because.? So, according to EPI, between 2000-2014, the USA lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs. Ill start with NAFTA. So, the hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs that were lost due to NAFTA was beacuse NAFTA provided incentives for US manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico. Especially as they could then ship the products mostly tariff-free into the US. So, on top of the job loss, American workers would have to take pay cuts because Mexican workers were earning around 1/5th of what Americans were earning at the time. According to MGI, from 2001-2003, the offshoring of manufacturing increased a company's average current recovery of capital income by over 30% and decreased its average labor compensation by over 30%. Anyway, while outsourcing manufacturing results in cheaper products, it also results in job loss and lower American household incomes. Moreover, the availability of low-wage manufacturing in other countries makes it harder for US manufacturers to compete and prosper if they keep their operations within the confines of the US. Moreover, deals like NAFTA and CAFTA lead to a decrease in the number of U.S. manufacturing suppliers, an increase in the number of individuals using welfare and medicaid, and an increase in the federal budget deficit. Not to mention that most of the new employment opportunities are usually in the lower-paying service sectors. Anyway, on average, service sector jobs pay over 25% less than manufacturing jobs. Moreover, it is also tough to get a job in the service sector due to the legal and illegal immigrants. Moreover, according to BLS, hundreds of thousands of displaced workers in the US dont find a new job within six months. Moreover, for the ones that do, again, many are likely to earn less money than they did at their previous job. So, with the lost jobs and the lower wages, many cant keep up with their mortgage payments and they lose their pensions. Also, are you sure that the commitments in regards to free trade are mandatory in regards to services.? Pretty sure that companies can choose what items it will open its borders to in regards to services. Anyway, for developing nations, who have very small consumer economies, we give them special trade breaks that allow their goods, which dont cost that much to make, to enter the US with no tariffs at all. For the more developed nations, we have imbalanced trade agreements that result in better access for their goods into the US than for ours into their countries. So, Costa Rica, the wealthiest CAFTA nation has a per-capita GDP that is around 1/4 the size of ours. Anyway, the 6 CAFTA nations have very small consumer economies and have a huge amount of low wage labor. So, really opening up that area of the world for small and medium sized US firms.? Almost as crazy as your Vietnam arguments. Their minimum wage translates to around 11 USD a month. Lot of buying power. So, in 1993, the year before NAFTA, the US had a 1.66 billion dollar trade surplus with Mexico. By 1995, the first year after NAFTA was enacted, we had a 15.8 billion dollar deficit. In 2014, our trade deficit with Mexico was 53.8 billion dollars. Our imports in regards to cars made in Mexico have increased 5x when looking at before NAFTA and what we see today. In 2017, corporate profits in the USA are almost at an all time high. USD 1,738.6 billion in the third quarter. Anyway, according to EPI, from 1979-2013, the hourly wages of middle-wage workers rose just 6%, or 0.2 percent a year. Further, according to EPI, the wages of middle-wage workers were totally flat or in decline over the 80's, 90's, and 2000's with the exception of the late 90's. For low-wage workers, they fell 5% from 1979-2013. Lastly, again according to EPI, from 1973-2013, hourly compensation of a typical worker rose just 9% while productivity increased 74%. O, sorry for those hard fought for advancements in work place rights American workers, libertarians dont give a shit. Middle class has to pay for those corporate tax cuts to make them "competitive". So, in 2013, there was a total of around 300k companies that exported goods from the US. over 90% were small firms and they generated around 1/3 of the US total known export value. Additionally, small businesses accounted for 63.3% of net new jobs from the third quarter of 1992 until the third quarter of 2013. Anyway, I bring this up because you crazy people wanted to pass the TPP. So, the US would have agreed to exempt foreign corporations from our laws and regulations. Moreover, quite obvious that the TPP would put domestic US firms that dont do business overseas at a disadvantage. So, screw small American firms and foreign companies that want to do business in America shouldnt have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Wow. Hang yourself libertarians. Among all US manufacturers, 96.4% of manufacturing exporters are small and medium sized companies. They contributed to around 1/5 in regards to exports and over 90% of manufacturing importers were small and medium sized; accounted for 14% of the sectors imports.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Also; ''anyone who disagrees with me is trolling'' lol R U TROLLING!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! U MUS BE TROLLING!!!

[@WHATISUTUBE]

lastly, the profit motive rewards anti-social behavior? No one is professing that Capitalism is 100% morally just. It's basic human nature expressed in markets of exchange. You're essentially fighting against humanities character. which is fine, but you can't say it's all bad. I didn't know technological advances that have brought people together and spread knowledge were bad *cough*Microsoft*cough*. Seriously, you can't cover everything in one SINGLE veneer. Perfection isn't for this world.

[@themanumission]

Tell him: There is no such thing as a free market subject to interest (usury). ;)

[@WHATISUTUBE]

As for puppy mills, that has less to do with a search for profit (as there are many profitable enterprises that aren't as inhumane) and everything to do with a low disregard for animal life. Or are you telling me that we had a high regard for animals before capitalist societies emerged? How many roaches did you kill today? Flies?

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Wait a second, I think I remember. You said something about trade deficits being bad because its all about hoarding cash, and I told you that most politicians believe they are bad because that's production abroad that could be happening on our own shores and its a job issue, as well as a nationalism thing. Damn dude, you've got some amazing cognitive dissonance there. How do you pull it off? Oh, right, you're trolling. Because no one could ever disagree with me. Im THAT much of an asshole. lol.

[@governmentdidit]

Why stop using a useful tool?

[@christopherarmstrong2710]

One individual in the comment section loves to hear the sound of his own voice.... Read "Man in the Arena" by T.R. - you Sir, are a critic.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Remember when you said that getting rid of money erases inequality? LOL. Egypt, the most fair society of them all! ''Oh wait, but grain counts as currency hurrrrrrrrr'' you're right, anything used to exchange for other goods or services counts as a mode of exchange! So the money itself doesn't cause the inequality, since it's there with or without. Remember when you thought you had a coherent argument?

[@WHATISUTUBE]

The value of the currency itself is based on GDP. You're faulty logic leads to the false belief that if you merely print more money then people are no longer poor. You can produce 10million USD in GDP, and 100 million dollars to circulate, but you only produced 10 million USD in goods, services, and investments. The value of the money itself is based on actual goods and services produced. Sorry for BOMBARDING you with comments, but I'm just awe-struck at your final conclusion.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

''I said early in its history it was a barter economy'' ''I said early in its history it was a barter economy'' ''I said early in its history it was a barter economy'' ''I said early in its history it was a barter economy'' ''I said early in its history it was a barter economy'' ''I said early in its history it was a barter economy'' ''I said early in its history it was a barter economy'' 'I said early in its history it was a barter economy' 'I said early in its history it was a barter economy'

[@WHATISUTUBE]

And I'm sorry, but it's the dumbest proposition I've heard this month. You seem like a smart guy, so I don't know why you've come to such a foolish conclusion. Even if you got rid of money (like the early USSR did), people will find it hard to get what they want since they need to find someone with EXACTLY what they want demanding EXACTLY what they have. A currency will be settled upon NATURALLY. Historically, currencies sprout up in every single civilization. Except tiny ones, obviously.

[@WHATISUTUBE]

Oh god, that is such a fucked up way of looking at economics. It's the type of kid science whereby you know VERY little about something but enough to come up with stupid solutions. ''If the Earth is round, then if we run REALLY REALLY REALLY FAST will it be like me standing on top of a ball, and will the ball move with me standing IN PLACE?!!?''. Dude, that idea is so funny. The same principle DOESN'T apply.

[@Somewondude]

but i dont have a boat jk