Let's talk about the capitalist idea of 'freedom': free trade

  • News
  • Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Idea trade
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of "free trade" and the role of the United States in promoting and defending free markets. It brings up the example of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez accusing the US of blocking a deal for training jets from Brazil due to protected US technology. The conversation also delves into the topic of patriotism and self-interest in relation to national identity and foreign policy. Some argue that the US acts out of self-preservation and others criticize the hypocrisy of claiming to promote freedom while also acting in self-interest. Overall, the conversation highlights the complex and controversial nature of international trade and politics.
  • #1
alexandra
Hi all

So-called "free trade" is one of the holy grails of capitalism, is it not? And the USA takes the lead in creating and defending free markets? How, then, does one explain this?

Chavez angry with US over jet row

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused the United States of blocking a purchase of training jets from Brazil.
Mr Chavez said Washington stopped the deal with the Brazilian aviation company, Embraer, because the planes contained protected US technology.

The president also repeated accusations that Washington was blocking the supply of spare parts for Venezuela's aging F-16 fighter fleet.

He threatened to buy new ones from Russia or China.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4600808.stm
Just one example of 'capitalist freedom':rolleyes:

This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course - if we delve deeper into 'free markets' (which perhaps we may care to do in this thread) . Some introductory reading can be found in the links at the bottom of this webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The US, like every country, is first and foremost out for its own self-interest.

So what?
 
  • #3
russ_watters said:
The US, like every country, is first and foremost out for its own self-interest.
So what?

Sure. (We have all noticed US politics is mainly based on self-interest...:wink: )
Although I think it's a quite sick attitude. I've never understood this patriotic stuff.
 
  • #4
EL said:
Sure. (We have all noticed US politics is mainly based on self-interest...:wink: )
Although I think it's a quite sick attitude. I've never understood this patriotic stuff.
:confused: :confused: What do you mean? Are you saying that most other countries are not primarily out for their own self-interest?
 
  • #5
russ_watters said:
The US, like every country, is first and foremost out for its own self-interest.
So what?
You ask 'So what?' My response to this question is that this would be ok, were it not for the hypocrisy, the ideological obscurantism involved in claiming that one is promoting 'freedom' when one is, in fact, not.
 
  • #6
russ_watters said:
:confused: :confused: What do you mean? Are you saying that most other countries are not primarily out for their own self-interest?

I said "sure", which means I agree with that most countries primarly acts for their own best, and I especially find that it holds well for USA.
However, I don't like (and cannot really understand) that patriotic attitude, and hope it will change in the future.
 
  • #7
EL said:
However, I don't like (and cannot really understand) that patriotic attitude, and hope it will change in the future.
Where does patriotism even come into the discussion here ? :confused:

The guiding principle is self-preservation.
 
  • #8
Conservatism is more accurate. It does share some elements with nationalism.
 
  • #9
Gokul43201 said:
The guiding principle is self-preservation.

Yes. Self-preservation of individuals.
However, I have a hard time to see why I should care more about a random Swede than say a random American or Arab.
Ok, it's of course sometimes that carying more about my countrymen could give me personal advantages, but I don't find it's like that in general.

Take a hypotetical situation where you have to chose between killing either a compatriot or a foreigner, and you don't know any of them at all. Who would you choose?
Myself i would have to toss a coin since I cannot see why I should save the Swede just because he happened to be born on "the rigth side" of an imaginary line...
But my impression is that most people don't think like that.
 
  • #10
The OP situation is absurd. Does a country not have the right to refuse to sell its military technology to a rival country?
 
  • #11
rachmaninoff said:
The OP situation is absurd. Does a country not have the right to refuse to sell its military technology to a rival country?
Agree, it was a quite strange example. However I guess she wants to discuss the subject in a more general manner.
 
  • #12
It's not so free when technologically advanced and militarily powerful countries dominate weaker countries using force when necessarily.
 
  • #13
alexandra said:
You ask 'So what?' My response to this question is that this would be ok, were it not for the hypocrisy, the ideological obscurantism involved in claiming that one is promoting 'freedom' when one is, in fact, not.
What hypocrisy? It says right there in the first paragraph of the US Constitution that the US government exists for the benefit of the citizens of the US.

There is no hypocrisy: you are arguing a strawman for the purpose of baseless USA-bashing.

In addition, one person saying that the US sometimes acts out of egalitarianism does not mean they are saying the US always acts out of egalitarianism. Conversely, showing that the US sometimes acts out of selfishness or self-preservation does not prove that the US always acts out of selfishness. You're using the same logical fallacy that Burnsys used in the thread about the US spreading freedom.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
EL said:
Yes. Self-preservation of individuals.
However, I have a hard time to see why I should care more about a random Swede than say a random American or Arab.
Ok, it's of course sometimes that carying more about my countrymen could give me personal advantages, but I don't find it's like that in general.
You answered your own question - but whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, it's a reality. A person's first duty is to him/herself. If you are not prosperous, you can't help Sweden become prosperous. If Sweden is not prosperous, it can't help the Arab world become prosperous.

People see it as greed or selfishness, but it is a useful, practical reality and there isn't anything wrong with it.
Take a hypotetical situation where you have to chose between killing either a compatriot or a foreigner, and you don't know any of them at all. Who would you choose?
Myself i would have to toss a coin since I cannot see why I should save the Swede just because he happened to be born on "the rigth side" of an imaginary line...
But my impression is that most people don't think like that.
Why be so negative with the scenario? (I don't think that scenario fits the conversation): consider a homeless person who lives on the corner of your street vs one who lives in Iraq. Which one do you toss your daily change to? As with the above, the fact that you have a personal connection with the poor person on your street corner (you have to look at him every day, while you'll never meet this faceless Iraqi) does not make it wrong to give him the money instead of some Iraqi that you will never meet - even if you are only tossing him some change out of a sense of personal shame.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
The U.S. isn't ideologically 100% Capitalist. We're more capitalist than any major country in the world, but we're not solely devouted to one ideology at the expense of everything else.

For what it's worth, I really don't think Republicans are Capitalist at all...
 
  • #16
Capitalism is a system that'd collapse if truly free.

Though, I don't understand why they'd block that particular deal.

What I mean is like outsourcing.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, it's a reality.

Sure. But reality can be changed.

A person's first duty is to him/herself.
Agree.

If you are not prosperous, you can't help Sweden become prosperous. If Sweden is not prosperous, it can't help the Arab world become prosperous.

And say if I don't like the typical Swedish values very much. Why should I want Sweden to become prosperous?
What I can't stand is this "unconditional love" of ones home country. Often it is not a self-preserving attitude, but mostly something just others benefit from, without you getting anything back. Or even making things worse for you. (Note that I'm not saying you or anyone else here is of this type, but there are plenty of them out there...)

consider a homeless person who lives on the corner of your street vs one who lives in Iraq. Which one do you toss your daily change to?
Well I hardly see any homeless people in this country. If they are, they are so of their own free will.
Anyway I have given much, much more money to organizations working in Africa and Asia than I have given to poor people here.
 
  • #18
EL said:
Sure. But reality can be changed.
The basis of your feelings is hard-wired into your DNA. It cannot be changed.

edit: Nor should you want it to be changed. Your feelings - whether the physical like hunger or the strictly emotional like love - are what keep you alive, healthy, and happy.
And say if I don't like the typical Swedish values very much. Why should I want Sweden to become prosperous?
You wouldn't - but why would you live in a place that didn't fit you?

That's an essential component of patriotism - I live in the USA because I like the USA. If I didn't like the USA and thought my ideals were fundamentally incompatible with the US's, I'd move somewhere else. So in the practical sense, patriotism is simply a biproduct of liking where you live because you live where you like it.
What I can't stand is this "unconditional love" of ones home country.
I've never seen "unconditional love" in any commonly used definition of patriotism. People often bring it up as a strawman attack on the concept patriotism, but true patriotism requries that you be able to see and attempt to correct the problems in your country. That's why, in the US, voting is considered a patriotic act and people often say "if you don't vote, you can't complain".
Often it is not a self-preserving attitude, but mostly something just others benefit from, without you getting anything back. Or even making things worse for you. (Note that I'm not saying you or anyone else here is of this type, but there are plenty of them out there...)
99% of such people live in monasteries and their 100% altruistic way of life is fatally flawed and impotent. Bill Gates and Bono are just the sort of rich, greedy capitalists that alexandra hates most and the fact of the matter is that those guys will accomplish more in one year than all the monks on the planet combined. Why? Because they satiated their own ambition first and acquired the resources necessary to make real changes in the world.
Well I hardly see any homeless people in this country. If they are, they are so of their own free will.
Anyway I have given much, much more money to organizations working in Africa and Asia than I have given to poor people here.
I won't pretend to know how it works in Sweden, but in the US, a significant fraction of our taxes go toward helping the less fortunate. So while it is true that I gave more extra money to the tsunami relief than I ever gave to a homeless person, that's only because I already give so much in the form of taxes.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
russ_watters said:
The basis of your feelings is hard-wired into your DNA. It cannot be changed.
Ever heard of environment? Do you think you were born with a gene for capitalismloving?:wink:

You wouldn't - but why would you live in a place that didn't fit you?
Ehh? Practical reasons?
Why would anyone want to live in e.g. North Korea? Why don't they just leave?
(Btw, I could leave Sweden anytime, and maybe I will in the future, but I like this place.)

That's why, in the US, voting is considered a patriotic act
Then USA can't be a very patriotic country...:tongue2:

So while it is true that I gave more extra money to the tsunami relief than I ever gave to a homeless person, that's only because I already give so much in the form of taxes.
Well the difference is that one cannot choose directly where the taxes go.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
rachmaninoff said:
The OP situation is absurd. Does a country not have the right to refuse to sell its military technology to a rival country?
No, the OP situation is not absurd: according to the BBC article, Embraer is a Brazilian private company, not a US company. But I don't know - perhaps Embraer is a US company based in Brazil? One can't tell from the website: http://www.embraer.com/english/content/empresa/profile.asp [Broken]

The US government is telling a private enterprise based in a completely different country who they can and cannot sell their product to. This is my point. Even if the US government forbade a US-based company from selling products to a purchaser (as they do, in fact, do) this illustrates the myth of the existence of 'free markets'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
EL said:
Agree, it was a quite strange example. However I guess she wants to discuss the subject in a more general manner.
Correct, EL, though I don't think it was a strange example - perhaps it was more 'dramatic' than strange :smile: I'm focusing a lot of my research on what's happening in Latin America at the moment, so that's why I used that particular article. What I want to discuss is the notion of 'free markets' in general - particular examples are brought up to focus the discussion in reality rather than just leaving it at the level of theory.
 
  • #22
alexandra said:
No, the OP situation is not absurd: according to the BBC article, Embraer is a Brazilian private company, not a US company. But I don't know - perhaps Embraer is a US company based in Brazil? One can't tell from the website: http://www.embraer.com/english/content/empresa/profile.asp [Broken]
The US government is telling a private enterprise based in a completely different country who they can and cannot sell their product to. This is my point. Even if the US government forbade a US-based company from selling products to a purchaser (as they do, in fact, do) this illustrates the myth of the existence of 'free markets'.
When was the last time anyone described the US as having a truly free market? I can't think of a time when it has been. I believe that economists that push for more purely free market economics here have been doing so since the US became an independant nation. It's never actually happened as far as I know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
russ_watters said:
What hypocrisy? It says right there in the first paragraph of the US Constitution that the US government exists for the benefit of the citizens of the US.
There is no hypocrisy: you are arguing a strawman for the purpose of baseless USA-bashing.
IMO, Russ (and this can be seen in the subtext of all my posts), the first statement you make above is a commonly-held fallacy. It may be the case that the US Constitution asserts that the US government exists for the benefit of the citizens of the US - my understanding, however, is that it exists to secure and further the interests of a particular class of very powerful and very rich citizens in the United States, not all citizens.

Your second statement is incorrect. It is not my intention to do 'baseless USA-bashing', and anyone reading my posts throughout all my time in this forum will see this. You have to understand the subtleties of my arguments: never once have I 'bashed' ordinary US citizens - in fact, I really sympathise with the predicament that many US citizens find themselves in, living under an administration who is doing things the people find totally repugnant. I critique the actions of the powerful when these actions deserve it. We can't just ignore what's happening, can we? So please don't accuse me of 'baseless USA-bashing'; it's not what I do. You will notice that I critique other governments as well - but perhaps it is because the US government is so strong and so active around the world that most of our discussions focus around it? My basic problem is not with this government or that - it is with so-called 'democracies' and the ruthless economic system they represent.

russ_watters said:
In addition, one person saying that the US sometimes acts out of egalitarianism does not mean they are saying the US always acts out of egalitarianism. Conversely, showing that the US sometimes acts out of selfishness or self-preservation does not prove that the US always acts out of selfishness. You're using the same logical fallacy that Burnsys used in the thread about the US spreading freedom.
Again, I would prefer us to focus on the underlying issue: how 'free' is the so-called 'free market'? As stated above, the most counter-examples that exist to counter the argument that capitalism is about free markets come from the US government's actions as this is the administration that is supposedly on a mission to liberalise the whole world and 'free' its markets.
 
  • #24
TheStatutoryApe said:
When was the last time anyone described the US as having a truly free market? I can't think of a time when it has been. I believe that economists that push for more purely free market economics here have been doing so since the US became an independant nation. It's never actually happened as far as I know.
But the entire justification for overthrowing foreign governments (eg. Iraq, just to take one example) is to bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' to the world: the US government purports to take these actions in order to further these principles, for the good of humanity. If the US government is not actually promoting 'free market' policies, or freedom in any way, then the whole justification is a lie! Does everyone know this and think it's ok? It was my understanding that these issues need to be discussed because people obviously don't seem to know what's happening. It's a very sad state of affairs if people actually do know what's happening and just don't care about the lies.

In effect, I'm trying to examine the ideology of 'capitalism' and 'free markets'. People keep going on about how 'socialism/communism' could never work, and that the only proven system that can work is capitalism. I'm trying to examine this statement. What is capitalism? Is it good? Is it really the best we can do, our only option? Is it, in fact, a viable option at all in the long term? These are the underlying questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
alexandra said:
But the entire justification for overthrowing foreign governments (eg. Iraq, just to take one example) is to bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' to the world: the US government purports to take these actions in order to further these principles, for the good of humanity. If the US government is not actually promoting 'free market' policies, or freedom in any way, then the whole justification is a lie! Does everyone know this and think it's ok? It was my understanding that these issues need to be discussed because people obviously don't seem to know what's happening. It's a very sad state of affairs if people actually do know what's happening and just don't care about the lies.
In effect, I'm trying to examine the ideology of 'capitalism' and 'free markets'. People keep going about how 'socialism/communism' could never work, and that the only proven system that can work is capitalism. I'm trying to examine this statement. What is capitalism? Is it good? Is it really the best we can do, our only option? Is it, in fact, a viable option at all in the long term? These are the underlying questions.
Whoa there... you're jumping back and forth here. You've equated "free markets" and "freedom" in general and went on to say that since the US doesn't actually promote pure free market economics then it must not really care about freedom and so what it says about it's intentions about promoting freedom are lies and then you're back on to free markets and... Do you see the crazy sort of mish mash you have going on here?
Perhaps you can rephrase this and make your logic a bit clearer? Also perhaps we can talk about Capitalism instead of taking off on tangents about the US and it's supposed lies?
 
  • #26
TheStatutoryApe said:
Whoa there... you're jumping back and forth here. You've equated "free markets" and "freedom" in general and went on to say that since the US doesn't actually promote pure free market economics then it must not really care about freedom and so what it says about it's intentions about promoting freedom are lies and then you're back on to free markets and... Do you see the crazy sort of mish mash you have going on here?
Perhaps you can rephrase this and make your logic a bit clearer? Also perhaps we can talk about Capitalism instead of taking off on tangents about the US and it's supposed lies?
Phew, I'm exhausted! Ok, I'll have to rethink how to put this. You want me to distinguish clearly between 'free markets' and 'freedom' in general? I think I have an approach that may work: I'd better revisit what the US administration currently claims to be fighting for in Iraq, and what it wanted to achieve with the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) - that may clear things up. Intelligent response pending... I'm now going to log off and go outside for a walk and a breath of air :smile:
 
  • #27
EL said:
Ever heard of environment? Do you think you were born with a gene for capitalismloving?:wink:
There is only so much that the environment can do. It cannot, without essentially brainwashing you, counteract the capitalism gene.
Ehh? Practical reasons?
Why would anyone want to live in e.g. North Korea? Why don't they just leave?
I doubt many people feel patriotic about living in North Korea - bad example.
(Btw, I could leave Sweden anytime, and maybe I will in the future, but I like this place.)
Well, then I hate to break it to you, but you are patriotic! :mad:
Well the difference is that one cannot choose directly where the taxes go.
Yes.
 
  • #28
alexandra said:
IMO, Russ (and this can be seen in the subtext of all my posts), the first statement you make above is a commonly-held fallacy. It may be the case that the US Constitution asserts that the US government exists for the benefit of the citizens of the US - my understanding, however, is that it exists to secure and further the interests of a particular class of very powerful and very rich citizens in the United States, not all citizens.
Now you are contradicting yourself and getting off point. Let's go over your main thesis again: You said that people (who, you did not specify) are hypocrites for saying that the US exists to spread capitalism, but the US Constitution (not to mention the Declaration of Independence) is clear in saying that that is not the case. Thus, your assertion is clearly false (ironically, it's clearer that your assertion is false than your assertion is clear).
Your second statement is incorrect. It is not my intention to do 'baseless USA-bashing'...

So please don't accuse me of 'baseless USA-bashing'; it's not what I do.
When so much of what you say is factually wrong, heavily biased, and phrased generally or as questions instead of specific, declarative statements, the only thing we end up seeing here is baseless USA-bashing. I cannot believe such a writing style would go over well in your political science classes.

We are trying to enforce standards of quality here - that means that the OP must make a clear thesis (not ask leading questions without answering them) and then substantiate it. You did neither (though you did sort of provide a thesis in your second post).

[edit: This may sound paternalistic, but I expect more from you than I otherwise would because I know something about your background and I know what you are - or should be - capable of. The scientific areas of this forum see posts of high quality because people who have knowledge of those fields posts high quality posts. The politics forum is a cesspool because people - even those with some knowledge and intelligence - post crap.

Show me that your intention here is not simply spewing crap: start over from scratch and write out a post in essay format. Start with a brief introduction, then state a coherent, declarative, specific thesis, then defend it. Otherwise, it just looks like you read an article that said something you didn't like and you jumped straight from that to a vague generality about the USA and capitalists, without any coherent thought process in between. ]
Again, I would prefer us to focus on the underlying issue: how 'free' is the so-called 'free market'? As stated above, the most counter-examples that exist to counter the argument that capitalism is about free markets come from the US government's actions as this is the administration that is supposedly on a mission to liberalise the whole world and 'free' its markets.
Again - you are asserting a contradiction where clearly one does not exist. Perhaps you could provide us with some evidence to back up your claims from the op and subsequent posts:
So-called "free trade" is one of the holy grails of capitalism, is it not? And the USA takes the lead in creating and defending free markets? How, then, does one explain this?

...this would be ok, were it not for the hypocrisy, the ideological obscurantism involved in claiming that one is promoting 'freedom' when one is, in fact, not.
In declarative form:

1. "Free trade" is one of the holy grails of capitalism.

2. The USA takes the lead in creating and defending free markets.

3. (implied) The US always/never acts in defense of capitalism, even globally.

4. Someone (who, you do not specify, but the USA as a whole is implied) is hypocritical by saying they act for free trade, but not actually acting for free trade.

Statement 1 is far too general to really be useful, but yes - in general, free trade is a good thing to a capitalist. In points 2 and 3, you are trying to create absolutes so that you can knock them down with one piece of evidence. You need to prove that those absolutes exist. Ie, you need to prove that the US always claims to be acting in the name of capitalism, even internationally. That'll be the tough one since, as my conversation with El implies, what is good for the country and what is good for the world are often in direct conflict with each other. You could argue that the USA (again, the USA is not a person) claims to act more for capitalism than against or that the USA is the world leader in spreading capitalism, but then you would lose the contradiction that you are looking to show - that would just be an argument over how successful the US is in achieving its goals. And in point 4, you must be specific about these so-called contradictions: who said what, exactly, and how did they act differently? If you aim to prove that Bush is a hypocrite, you may just succeed, but you'll need to start going through his speeches and finding specific statements that he said that he didn't follow-up on. If you aim to prove some broader contradiction...well, that's already been proven wrong.

If you are not interested in making logical arguments and more importantly, providing factually accurate evidence to back up that argumet, then we come back to my previous point...
 
Last edited:
  • #29
alexandra said:
Ok, I'll have to rethink how to put this...

Intelligent response pending...
I can't wait! Please (honestly) feel free to ignore the points in my previous post and just start over from scratch with a coherent essay about what you are trying to say/prove.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
russ_watters said:
I cannot believe such a writing style would go over well in your political science classes.
We are trying to enforce standards of quality here - that means that the OP must make a clear thesis (not ask leading questions without answering them) and then substantiate it. You did neither (though you did sort of provide a thesis in your second post).
Now, in reading the following response, try to imagine the stereotypical Australian drawl, the really lazy one you would hear in a movie like 'Crocodile Dundee': Russ, I could get really angry about this statement. You have no idea what classes I teach, and when I am talking to 'internet friends' on a discussion board I am in no way communicating in the same way I would in my classes. Such statements (remember, I'm not angry - though I suppose I would be well within my rights to get angry) constitute a personal attack and imply that I cannot do my job professionally. It does not matter to me what you think about my ability to do my job, but it's sort of slanderous to make such baseless accusations about what you infer to be my inability to do my work. Remember, too, that no matter how angry your political ideology makes me sometimes, I never make statements implying that what I see as your illogic must impact on your ability to do your job. Ok, smiles all round now - :cool: :cool: I will address the rest of this post tomorrow, perhaps. Sometimes, though, I wonder why I bother. I guess the only reason I bother is because you would like it so much if I stopped, Russ! I think I'll continue 'spewing' my 'crap', just to annoy you; makes our lives more interesting, doesn't it? :smile:
 
  • #31
russ_watters said:
I doubt many people feel patriotic about living in North Korea - bad example.
Actually I think a lot of people in North Korea are (fooled to be) patriotic.
But less extreme counties say e.g. Nigeria, Uruguay, Turkey or Pakistan then.

Well, then I hate to break it to you, but you are patriotic! :mad:
I think we have discussed this before, but please state how you define "patriotism" then.
 
  • #32
In reading through this thread, I noted the following:

Patriotism – I agree with EL that many Americans support bad policies based on nationalistic emotions rather than intelligent research and thought. The “support the troops” paraphernalia is a good example that I have mentioned more than once as very annoying (okay, asinine). This is really about supporting Bush and his damn, idiotic invasion under the pretenses of patriotism. If these people were REALLY patriotic they would get rid of Bush and start working on ways to bring the troops home so as to focus on rebuilding our nation beginning with decreasing our national debt (according to certain member's premise of self-perservation). And as EL notes, as a whole the U.S. is not really very patriotic in view of our disgustingly low voter turn out, and an entire range of behavior contrary to democratic premises.

Okay, back to the basic premises of this thread and problems inherent in the idea of a pure free trade market…

russ_watters said:
When so much of what you say is factually wrong, heavily biased, and phrased generally or as questions instead of specific, declarative statements, the only thing we end up seeing here is baseless USA-bashing. I cannot believe such a writing style would go over well in your political science classes.
Aside from the usual ad hominem (attacking the messenger with lack of maturity and professional courtesy), patronizing (like who is a political science expert, you?), over use of bolded words in your writing style, etc., I very much agree with alexandra that the U.S. acts in favor of those who are in power--not the general population. That is such an obvious no-brainer, which has been a topic of discussion throughout the ages. Those who resort to off-handed accusations of “U.S. bashing” tend to be those who support the status quo because they are in the ruling class, or most commonly, they believe they will be in the ruling class (Hah! Feel free to calculate the odds and get yourself a reality check. Then go on and see what the heck has happened to the so-called American Dream--you know, the one most Americans can no longer achieve, so it has become exactly that--just a dream.)

It is common to hear of today’s world economic system as being “free trade” or “globalization”. Some describe the historical events leading up to today’s global free trade and the existing system as “inevitable.” …Instead, various factors such as political decisions, military might, wars, imperial processes and social changes throughout the last few decades and centuries have pulled the world system in various directions. Today’s world economic system is a result of such processes. Power is always a factor.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Criticisms.asp

How do we separate free trade (capitalism concepts) from freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)?

"[T]he emergence of capitalism represents a culture that is in many ways the most successful that has ever been deployed in terms of accommodating large numbers of individuals in relative and absolute comfort and luxury. It has not been as successful, however, in integrating all in equal measure, and its failure here remains one of its major problems. It has solved the problems of feeding large numbers of people (although certainly not all), and it has provided unprecedented advances in health and medicine (but, again, not for all). It has promoted the development of amazingly complex technological instruments and fostered a level of global communication without precedent. It has united people in common pursuits as has no other culture. Yet it remains to be seen when the balance sheet is tallied whether capitalism represents the epitome of “progress” that some claim." — Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 11 - 12

I don’t see how you can separate the two. Okay…carry on…(I don’t have any more time for this at the moment).
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Depends what is meant by freedom. In capitalism freedom is money because without it one cannot access the market.
 
  • #34
It's a shame to see some of the mentors here (one in particular) continues to abuse their priviliged position to post patronizing, ad-hominem attacks on those whose views they do not agree with. Perhaps if we simply ignore such posters they'll get bored and go away.

Interestingly asserting somebody is deficient in their work is 1 of only 3 slanders / libels actionable per se. i.e. the complainant doesn't have to prove actual damages to win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
russ_watters said:
When so much of what you say is factually wrong, heavily biased, and phrased generally or as questions instead of specific, declarative statements, the only thing we end up seeing here is baseless USA-bashing. I cannot believe such a writing style would go over well in your political science classes.
*First point, Russ: prove that what I write is factually wrong, rather than just asserting that it is.
* Second point: In my job I am trained not to 'impart knowledge' but to develop my students' abilities to think critically. I therefore ask them to question the world they live in. I don't know what the education system in the US teaches students to do, but as far as I am concerned the main aim of tertiary education is to develop students' critical thinking skills, and one cannot do that by telling students what to think: one asks questions (it's called the Socratic Method). By the way, this goes over very well in my classes. Of all classes students are enrolled in, I pride myself that it is mine in which they learn how to think for themselves. And, amazingly, they seem to appreciate this - they keep enrolling in as many classes as I teach!

russ_watters said:
We are trying to enforce standards of quality here...
Oh, really? Pardon me for not meeting your high standards!
russ_watters said:
...that means that the OP must make a clear thesis (not ask leading questions without answering them) and then substantiate it. You did neither (though you did sort of provide a thesis in your second post).
Well, I raise questions. That is my style. I am not arrogant enough to feel that I have all the answers.

russ_watters said:
[edit: This may sound paternalistic, but I expect more from you than I otherwise would because I know something about your background and I know what you are - or should be - capable of. The scientific areas of this forum see posts of high quality because people who have knowledge of those fields posts high quality posts. The politics forum is a cesspool because people - even those with some knowledge and intelligence - post crap.
Look up the Socratic Method of teaching/learning, Russ - actually, I'll make it easy for you... here's a link: http://education.yahoo.com/college/essentials/articles/law/law_socratic_method.html
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
109
Views
53K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top