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

  • News
  • Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date
  • #26
alexandra
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,238
5,240
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,238
5,240
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. Lets 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 sorta 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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,238
5,240
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
alexandra
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 sorta 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
EL
Science Advisor
547
0
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
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
0
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
30
0
Depends what is meant by freedom. In capitalism freedom is money because without it one cannot access the market.
 
  • #34
Art
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
alexandra
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 sorta 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
 
  • #36
125
0
alexandra said:
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?

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
:!!) :!!) :!!) You'll have that. It'll be all right. :!!) :!!) :!!)
 

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

  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
57
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
68
Views
9K
Top