Protectionism in 1926

October 9th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

This image is from the National Library.

Interesting to see the same arguments then, that we still get today. Some are still in the 1920s though, with the Greens policy being to retain or impose tariffs to stop “unfair” competition. They also advocate “Support the option of using an across-the-board tariff to address balance of payments problems”.

China and India has delivered hundreds of millions out of poverty thanks to the reduction of trade barriers and opening up their economies, yet the still support tariffs and protectionism.

Tags: ,

55 Responses to “Protectionism in 1926”

  1. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    http://unlimited.co.nz/unlimited.nsf/leadership/pacific-rift

    ” Earlier, US ambassador to New Zealand David Huebner said he believed New Zealand should look at the greater good that could come from a “21st century” trade deal – including greater investment, migration and intellectual property links – rather than focusing narrowly on “19th century” concerns such as tariffs, subsidies and quotas.

    The rhetoric from New Zealand’s third-largest trading partner puts the heat on the government negotiating team to make some headway before the US loses interest.

    Auckland University’s associate professor of political studies, Stephen Hoadley, said Huebner “seemed to be saying: `Let’s not get hung up on the Meat Import Act that the United States imposes against New Zealand beef, or on dairy tariffs; let’s try to move forward into other areas that we can co-operate on which may project more future growth’.”

    Whilst I agree with you it is hard to argue free trade when the nation that espouses it the most routinely ignores it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    For the Greens this issue is a win-win: they get to claim to be looking out for “average Kiwi Joe the economically illiterate salt of the earth from Battle Street, YourTown, NZ” AND indulge their own passion for control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Whilst I agree with you it is hard to argue free trade when the nation that espouses it the most routinely ignores it.

    So the concept becomes invalid when it is paid lip-service by some overseas politicians? The US also routinely calls for peace in the Middle East.

    Protectionism is easy, free trade is hard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    Some are still in the 1920s though, with the Greens policy being to retain or impose tariffs to stop “unfair” competition.

    Well yes, the whole thing is classic mercantilism – and that also includes the whole kerfuffle about a Labour-Green government printing money. In addition to all the good things it will do internally they also see a bonus in devaluing the currency and thereby pumping up our exporters, who apparently can compete on little else but price.

    If the Greens want to be thought of as “radicals”, they’d better start coming up with stuff that sounds like it’s from the 21st century, rather than 19th century economic orthodoxy or, in this case, 17th century ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    China and India has delivered hundreds of millions out of poverty thanks to the reduction of trade barriers and opening up their economies, yet the Greens still support tariffs and protectionism.
    ….
    and the cost is letting Chinas millionaires buy up New Zealand’s* land and property . The hundreds of millions are a drop in the bucket however and the job isn’t complete until we deal similarly with the rest of the worlds poor. The problem is, however to increase world GDP we require more and more oil whose rate of production is being throttled. In addition climate change from AGW is melting the glaciers that feed the major rivers of Asia.
    At the end of the day the nick-nacks from The Warehouse don’t compensate for the fact that NZr’s are being forced into concrete jungles without gardens.

    *assuming we are a Nation and not an agglomeration of individual property owners)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    hj as usual peddles mis-information and xenophobia.

    I fail to see how hundreds of millions is a drop in the bucket

    The rest of his comment seems to argue that the poor should stay poor and the so called rich get poorer in order to deal with climate change.

    The final addled comment being about New Zealanders being forced to live without gardens.

    It seems hj is a very confused person

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    You mean to say John Deere supports gay marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    World oil supply v’s GDP growth
    http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-10-01/how-much-oil-growth-do-we-need-support-world-gdp-growth

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    I fail to see how hundreds of millions is a drop in the bucket
    ……..
    as a percentage of the worlds poor it is.

    “The rest of his comment seems to argue that the poor should stay poor and the so called rich get poorer in order to deal with climate change. ”

    no it argues limits to growth including the effects of climate change on food production.

    Nothing to see here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    Also the exponential function: divide the rate of growth into 70 to find the doubling time etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    “China” has not delivered hundreds of millions from poverty.
    Deng Zhao Ping opened the place up to foreign investment which poured into manufacturing there.
    We lost our factories ,jobs and exports to their virtual slave labour pay rates and conditions overseen by a corrupt communist party engaged in a centrally planned economy.

    Got nothing to do with free or fair trade and the whole thing could collapse tomorrow or be swept away on the whim of a Peking mandarin,depending on which faction holds power.

    India? as long as untouchables are employed as human sewer systems to clear other people’s shit from the ground floor of middle class apartment blocks it will never be a genuine economic powerhouse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    India? as long as untouchables are employed as human sewer systems to clear other people’s shit from the ground floor of middle class apartment blocks it will never be a genuine economic powerhouse.

    Thats a lazy sentence. You might as well say, as long as they play cricket on flat pitches, they will never be a genuine economic powerhouse.

    You need to explain how you got from A to Z on that one.

    And are you really saying that the central planning by corrupt officials in China is what has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Tauhei Notts (1,724 comments) says:

    This original topic came from a Papers Past entry.
    If any Kiwiblogger knows anybody connected with that Papers Past thing being put on the internet, please pass on my grateful thanks to them. It is fascinating

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    I’m interested to see that 1926 NZ had a Queer Street, and that agricultural implement manufacturers were located there alongside the gay bars and interior decoration shops. That must have freaked out Colin Craig’s grandfather.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    To be completely honest, I couldn’t give too stuffs about the populations of India or China rising from poverty. What has been the impact to the population of NZ as a result of the free trade agreements? Has it been win/win or have the poor in India & China benefited to our detriment?

    If these agreements are anything but a win for us, then they should be torn to shreds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    It is unbelievable the hypocrisy – exactly the same people/greens/flotsam and jetsam who rail against free trade are the ones who want to inflict world government on us out of the United Nations. They pretend to be against free trade but are actually in favour of forced redistribution of wealth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    China and India has delivered hundreds of millions out of poverty

    Correction: according to the relative poverty measurement that has been widely quoted in the NZ media recently – China and India has delivered hundreds of millions into poverty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    To be completely honest, I couldn’t give too stuffs about the populations of India or China rising from poverty.

    I am entirely comfortable differing in my opinion.

    If these agreements are anything but a win for us, then they should be torn to shreds.

    They are a win for anyone who doesnt hold the opinion that exports are “good” and imports are “bad”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    I am entirely comfortable differing in my opinion.

    Awesome, thanks for sharing.

    They are a win for anyone who doesnt hold the opinion that exports are “good” and imports are “bad”.

    And that is relevant to my point how exactly? I think you are reading more into my sentence than is actually there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Awesome, thanks for sharing.

    Well, when the other person starts off by saying that the well-being of others has no relevance to them, the gulf in starting positions and world outlook is too wide to be bridged.

    And that is relevant to my point how exactly?

    The fact trade occurs proves that both trading parties are made better off (why would trade occur otherwise?). Assuming trade increases after a FTA (which is an easy assumption, what sort of FTA would lead to less business being done?) then both parties are betterer off. From this perspective, more trade equals “win”.

    The patterns of trade change after a free trade agreement due to restrictions on individual behaviours being removed. If you believe exports are good, and imports are bad, then a change in pattern towards more imports and fewer exports would be a “loss”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Well, when the other person starts off by saying that the well-being of others has no relevance to them, the gulf in starting positions and world outlook is too wide to be bridged.

    Oh, now I get it! Your just selectively quoting and completely forgetting the context…….

    The fact trade occurs proves that both trading parties are made better off (why would trade occur otherwise?). Assuming trade increases after a FTA (which is an easy assumption, what sort of FTA would lead to less business being done?) then both parties are betterer off. From this perspective, more trade equals “win”.

    The patterns of trade change after a free trade agreement due to restrictions on individual behaviours being removed. If you believe exports are good, and imports are bad, then a change in pattern towards more imports and fewer exports would be a “loss”.

    Awesome, you know I’m glad and all that I gave you an outlet for release but frankly I dont understand why you’ve replied it to my post…

    HINT: I’m not complaining about imports – frankly I like getting stuff cheaper than overpriced local merchandise. BUT have we benefited as much as the poorer nations, or has it been charity in free trade clothing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    The fact trade occurs proves that both trading parties are made better off (why would trade occur otherwise?). Assuming trade increases after a FTA (which is an easy assumption, what sort of FTA would lead to less business being done?) then both parties are betterer off. From this perspective, more trade equals “win”.
    ………………………
    A six-day showcase in Shanghai of more than $800 million worth of premier New Zealand property is generating “serious interest” from specially invited Chinese VIPs according to the organisers, Harcourts’ franchise Cooper & Co.
    http://news.harcourts.net/news/harcourts%E2%80%99-showcase-in-china-generating-%E2%80%9Cserious-interest%E2%80%9D/

    is this what we have in mind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Just some socialist hippy baby boomers disposing of the assets they have created for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    ” The trend toward globalization (free trade, free capital mobility) is not usually associated with migration or demography. If globalization were to be accomplished by free mobility of people, then demographers would certainly be paying attention. However, since globalization is being driven primarily by “free migration” of goods and capital, with labor a distant third in terms of mobility, few have noticed that the economic consequences of this free flow of goods and capital are equivalent to those that would obtain under a free flow of labor. They are also driven by the same demographic and economic forces that would determine labor migration, if labor were free to migrate.

    The economic tendency resulting from competition is to equalize wages and social standards across countries. But instead of cheap labor moving to where the capital is, and bidding wages down, capital moves to where the cheap labor is, and bids wages up-or would do so if only there were not a nearly unlimited supply of cheap labor, a Malthusian situation that still prevails in much of the world. Yet wages in the capital-sending country are bid down as much as if the newly employed laborers in the low-wage country had actually immigrated to the high-wage country. The determinant of wages in the low-wage country is not labor “productivity,” nor anything else on the demand side of the labor market. It is entirely on the supply side-an excess and rapidly growing supply of labor at near-subsistence wages. This demographic condition-a very numerous and still rapidly growing underclass in the third world-is one for which demographers have many explanations, beginning with Malthus. ”
    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/559

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Oh, now I get it! Your just selectively quoting and completely forgetting the context……

    Explain the context. You dont care about millions of people being pulled out of poverty (absolute, not relative) thanks to trade.

    BUT have we benefited as much as the poorer nations, or has it been charity in free trade clothing?

    Well arent you changing your tune. This is what you wrote originally: Has it been win/win or have the poor in India & China benefited to our detriment? If these agreements are anything but a win for us, then they should be torn to shreds.

    So now you say you were complaining about the distribution of gains? We are better off, they are better off, but you are pissed off that they might have gotten more better off than we did? Even though we were already much better off than them to begin with.

    is this what we have in mind?

    hj, if you dont want them to own it, then offer the seller more for it.

    And your next post is invalidated by references to Malthus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    Kevin (668) Says:
    October 9th, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    Just some socialist hippy baby boomers disposing of the assets they have created for themselves.
    …….
    yeah right:

    Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night
    into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains —
    and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected
    by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those
    improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by
    every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the
    community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to
    the process from which his own enrichment is derived. (Winston Churchill, 1909,
    quoted by Barker 2003, p. 116).
    http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/…/McLean%20Land%20tax.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    HJ, You seem to be agreeing that the people who have manipulated the system so they can now export our land for personal gain are leaches? Which was my point, but hypocritical leaches.

    Kimble, on the other hand, seems to be for fair trade to help the rich in third world countries, now I get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    If the rich hold the assets to trade, then they will reap the gains of trade. Not allowing trade with them doesn’t make poor people better off. But you have to be more than a little bit blinded by ideology not to see the benefits to poor people of freer trade in the world. At least Bevan can admit to those benefits existing, even if she does begrudge the greediness of the beneficiaries.

    I am for FREE trade, because I dont possess the arrogance to presume I have the information required to justify intervention in the voluntary exchange of goods and services by others.

    Fair trade is the sort of thing we can infer you would support; trade with restrictions and covenants mandating the distribution of gains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    No I am for free trade, but I draw the line at our land, especially if we dont have the freedom to buy the land in the other trading country.

    And the brilliant quote from Winston Churchill seems to support my reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    Trade barriers are a red herring. A borderless world economy would allow people to move without restriction to where the work is too. Currently we only provide that flexibility to employers. That provides a lop-sided balance of power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    So in other words we should flood the New Zealand market with cheap labour until no one wants to come here any more….that would work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    ^ A world without economic borders is not necessarily a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    No I am for free trade, but I draw the line at our land, especially if we dont have the freedom to buy the land in the other trading country.

    Why would that matter? Why would we sell our high value land and purchase their low value land?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    I tried to find a logical flaw in the argument that free trade should include labour.
    I think it is this…
    commodities don’t choose where they are sent, they are sent where there is demand
    if they are defective we can send them back
    when they are worn out we can put them in the bin
    and…
    they don’t ask if their cuzzies can come too
    In other words, people are not commodities!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wat dabney (3,778 comments) says:

    Bevan,

    To be completely honest, I couldn’t give too stuffs about the populations of India or China rising from poverty.

    As is your right.

    What has been the impact to the population of NZ as a result of the free trade agreements? Has it been win/win or have the poor in India & China benefited to our detriment?

    Here’s the thing: the rest of us have the right to trade freely with whomsoever we choose. Free trade is primarily about freedom, not economics.

    If these agreements are anything but a win for us, then they should be torn to shreds.

    Who is this “us”? Don’t include me with cunts like yourself who don’t care about the millions living in grinding poverty. I will freely and peaceably trade with people in China and India and will have absolutely nothing to do with sickos like you. That’s freedom, and that’s the beauty of free trade.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wat dabney (3,778 comments) says:

    hj,

    is this what we have in mind?

    Try and get your prejudiced mind round that fact that other people are not your slaves and may trade with whoever they wish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Ever heard of “downsizing? Kimble.

    I suppose what really hurts about the statement…

    “if you dont want them to own it, then offer the seller more for it.”

    is … we can’t because of fifty years of useless government policy, which I certainly did not support or have control over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    wat if you think selling our land and with it our sovereignty and our children and grandchildren into servitude then you are a far worse selfish prick that anyone around here.

    Plus you need to travel and see that it wont be long until this country needs the trade aid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Explain the context. You dont care about millions of people being pulled out of poverty (absolute, not relative) thanks to trade.

    That should be the concern of their governments, not ours – and our free trade agreements should not be formed to give the other country more benefits than they give us.

    So now you say you were complaining about the distribution of gains? We are better off, they are better off, but you are pissed off that they might have gotten more better off than we did?

    No, I was posing a question – you can tell by the use of question marks in my original post.

    Even though we were already much better off than them to begin with.

    Cry me a river. If you want to change the world, sponsor a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Ever heard of “downsizing? Kimble.

    What about it?

    we can’t because of fifty years of useless government policy, which I certainly did not support or have control over.

    Why so quick to blame government? There is $800 million of property up for grabs. None of us have that sort of money. But you could, if you were so inclined, try to pool money from a number of people together to buy the land. You would need to make a case for doing so. Could you do it? Can you do it? Can you make the case that this land is worth more than the cost of buying it?

    if you think selling our land and with it our sovereignty and our children and grandchildren into servitude

    I dont think understand the concept of land sale. There is no transfer of sovereignty, and your absurd claim that our kids will live in servitude has no basis in reality.

    commodities don’t choose where they are sent, they are sent where there is demand, if they are defective we can send them back

    Commodities cant be defective. They’re commodities.

    when they are worn out we can put them in the bin

    Commodities cant wear out. They’re commodities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Here’s the thing: the rest of us have the right to trade freely with whomsoever we choose. Free trade is primarily about freedom, not economics.

    Like Kimble, you have missed the point. I am not against trade, be it free or other wise – I am against opening ourselves up to trading practices that put this country at a disadvantage.

    Who is this “us”? Don’t include me with cunts like yourself who don’t care about the millions living in grinding poverty. I will freely and peaceably trade with people in China and India and will have absolutely nothing to do with sickos like you. That’s freedom, and that’s the beauty of free trade.

    Nasty nasty language there Mr Dabney. You kiss your mother with that mouth? You think you have free trade with China? News flash genius, they can freely trade in NZ, but you cannot freely trade there. Stop deluding yourself.

    And again I’ll repeat for the morons who don’t seem to comprehend: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR GOVERNMENT, NOT OURS TO BRING THEIR POOR OUT OF POVERTY. FFS! Most of the time their own government doesn’t give two shits about the living conditions of their own poor!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. SPC (5,644 comments) says:

    It’s very hard to negotiate bi-lateral free trade agreements when WTO rules enable free trade in goods that exclude agriculture – and the price for free trade in agriculture is set as TPP style agreements designed to suit the centres of capital.

    We should have retained some tariffs and negotiated bi-lateral deals to ensure trade advantage to those countries that allowed access to our agriculture products. Now we have little to offer the Americans but gutting Pharmac, their writing our copyright laws, rules against farmer co-ops, reduced investment regulation, foreign ownership of our utilities and obedience to their corporate lawyers in the writing of legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    That should be the concern of their governments, not ours – and our free trade agreements should not be formed to give the other country more benefits than they give us.

    Why not? If we benefit half as much as they do, should we no longer trade with them and forego all benefit? That’ll teach ‘em!

    No, I was posing a question – you can tell by the use of question marks in my original post.

    Are you really hiding behind that? That’s pathetic. Its quite obvious what your position is; FTAs with poor countries cost us to their benefit.

    Nobody is saying that FTAs should be a transfer to poor countries. But you ARE saying that they shouldnt provide poor countries with better outcomes than we get. Even though we still benefit. And even though we are much more well off and dont even notice the gains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Try and get your prejudiced mind round that fact that other people are not your slaves and may trade with whoever they wish.

    Yet you seem to be in favour of trading with countries where many of their poor are working in what would be considered slave labour conditions…

    Looks like there were three fingers pointing back at you huh..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Why not? If we benefit half as much as they do, should we no longer trade with them and forego all benefit? That’ll teach ‘em!

    So, we’ve gone around how many times now and you still don’t get it?

    Ive got no problem with that if it is the case – cause that would be considered win/win. My issue was: Did we end up disadvantaged by the agreement? If the importation of the goods from a country like India mean the reduction in jobs for local manufacturing, then did NZ make that up in other areas – or did we make a loss overall compared to the period before the trade agreement?

    Please get it into your head, I am not against free trade. The situation you’ve described would be considered win/win, which I have clearly stated I support.

    Are you really hiding behind that? That’s pathetic. Its quite obvious what your position is; FTAs with poor countries cost us to their benefit.

    Nobody is saying that FTAs should be a transfer to poor countries. But you ARE saying that they shouldnt provide poor countries with better outcomes than we get.

    THUMP! Thats my head finally hitting the table.

    That is not my position. You are being dishonest. What is obvious is you clearly read more into ones post than is intended by them. It seems along with your selective quoting, you are also skilled at selective reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. wat dabney (3,778 comments) says:

    Bevan,

    Yet you seem to be in favour of trading with countries where many of their poor are working in what would be considered slave labour conditions…

    You are of course using the term “slave labour conditions” hyperbolically rather than literally.

    [care about millions of people being pulled out of poverty] should be the concern of their governments, not ours

    Again, the beauty of free trade is that people are free to indulge their ugly prejudices if they so wish. The problem you have with it is that it doesn’t let you impose yours on everyone else.
    Opposition to free trade is in effect you wishing you could coerce everyone else to abide by your prejudices. Well guess what: fuck off. We are not your slaves.

    Kevin,

    wat if you think selling our land and with it our sovereignty and our children and grandchildren into servitude then you are a far worse selfish prick that anyone around here.

    Teenager alert!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Bs Kimble you know what I mean. Government has implemented policies to drive up land prices and discourage productive investment with its penal tax system based solely on buying votes with wealth redistribution. Consequently New Zealanders can’t afford our land and it’s left for those overseas people who have lived in real economies to buy it.

    Consequently we become a service industry retirement home for those who have made their money offshore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    @ Wat Dabney. OMG, I actually though there could not be anyone this dumb in the world – but you sir take the cake. Good on you though, glad you’ve got that off your chest.

    Now, have you noticed the multitude of times where I have stated THAT I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST FREE TRADE?

    It does seem though that I could use a bull horn and scream it into your ear and you still wouldn’t comprehend. I don’t think anything could cure your dumbarsedness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Not childless like you wat. So do our free trade partners know we have a subsidised low paid workforce?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    You are of course using the term “slave labour conditions” hyperbolically rather than literally.

    Yeah, those workers making Apple products in China were working in ‘hyperbolically’ slave labour conditions.

    Do you at least believe the shit you are shovelling?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. wat dabney (3,778 comments) says:

    Bevan,

    I am against opening ourselves up to trading practices that put this country at a disadvantage.

    You are very confused is what you are.

    If these agreements are anything but a win for us, then they should be torn to shreds.

    Who is this “us”?

    Your whole position depends on me being forced to share your tribal prejudices about who is to be favoured over whom.

    If you don’t like Jews then don’t trade with Jews. Your choice. Bigotry concerning international trade is no different to bigotry over domesti inter-racial trade: it’s you deciding who is one of “us” and who is one of “them.”

    Kevin,

    So do our free trade partners know we have a subsidised low paid workforce?

    Teenager alert!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. wat dabney (3,778 comments) says:

    Bevan,

    Yeah, those workers making Apple products in China were working in ‘hyperbolically’ slave labour conditions.

    In what way are they genuine “slaves”?

    The answer, of course, is that they aren’t. They are just poor people taking the best of the very meagre choices available to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    China and India has delivered hundreds of millions out of poverty thanks to the reduction of trade barriers and opening up their economies, yet the Greens still support tariffs and protectionism.

    And China and India actively manage their exchange rates.

    Also, the degree of ‘openness’ is minimal compared with most advanced economies.

    When is our own factcheck.org arriving?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Really Wat? I’m confused…. Hey I’m not the one demanding NZ sign free trade agreements that do not benefit the country at the same time covering my eyes to the near slave labour practices in those same countries…. Remember those three fingers pointing back at you?

    Who is this “us”?

    Your whole position depends on me being forced to share your tribal prejudices about who is to be favoured over whom.

    If you don’t like Jews then don’t trade with Jews. Your choice. Bigotry concerning international trade is no different to bigotry over domesti inter-racial trade: it’s you deciding who is one of “us” and who is one of “them.”

    Who do you think moron, do you think I get to sign trade agreements of behalf of the country? Us = NZ. Like it or not the purpose of the government when negotiating trade deals is the get the best deal possible for us, the people of NZ. That does not mean they are to go out and try and screw the other party over – it means just that: to get the best deal for NZ. My original post was about ‘have we go the best deal’? Love though how you’ve managed to launch into a straw man argument this whole time trying to suggest I’m promoting race based trade practices. I’m not going to repeat myself yet again, your either too dumb to understand, or some how what I write is being translated into some alien language only you and Kimble seem to understand. Frankly there is no cure for morons like you who want to make the kind of assumptions that you have here.

    The answer, of course, is that they aren’t. They are just poor people taking the best of the very meagre choices available to them.

    Have you been living on the moon? Did you miss the whole Apple shutting down some of the factories in China thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,008) Says:
    October 9th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
    hj,

    “is this what we have in mind?”

    Try and get your prejudiced mind round that fact that other people are not your slaves and may trade with whoever they wish.
    ……….
    Herman Daly
    The global cosmopolitans think that it is immoral to make any policy distinction between citizen and noncitizen, and therefore favor free migration. They also suggest that free migration is the shortest route to their vision of the summum bonum, equality of wages worldwide. Their point is fair enough; there is some logic in their position-so long as they are willing to see wages equalized at a low level. But those who support free migration as the shortest route to equality of wages worldwide could only with great difficulty try to contend with problems of an open-access commons, the destruction of local community, and other issues raised above.
    A more workable moral guide is the recognition that, as a member of a national community, one’s obligation to non-citizens is to do them no harm, while one’s obligation to fellow citizens is first to do no harm and then try to do positive good. The many dire consequences of globalization (besides those mentioned above)-over-specialization in a few volatile export commodities (petroleum, timber, minerals, and other extractive goods with little value added locally, for instance), crushing debt burdens, exchange rate risks and speculative currency destabilization, foreign corporate control of national markets, unnecessary monopolization of “trade-related intellectual property rights” (typically patents on prescription drugs), and not least, easy immigration in the interests of lower wages and cheaper exports-amply show that the “do no harm” criterion is still far from being met.
    Free trade, specialization, and global integration mean that nations are no longer free not to trade. Yet freedom not to trade is surely necessary if trade is to remain voluntary, a precondition of its mutual benefit. To avoid war, nations must both consume less and become more self-sufficient. But free traders say we should become less self-sufficient and more globally integrated as part of the overriding quest to consume ever more. We must lift the laboring masses (which now include the formerly high-wage workers) up from their subsistence wages. This can only be done by massive growth, we are told. But can the environment sustain so much growth? It cannot. And how will whatever growth dividend there is ever get to the poor, i.e., how can wages increase given the nearly unlimited supply of labor? If wages do not increase then what reason is there to expect a fall in the birth rate of the laboring class via the “demographic transition”? How could we ever expect to have high wages in any country that becomes globally integrated with a globe having a vast oversupply of labor? Why, in a globally integrated world, would any nation have an incentive to reduce its birth rate?
    Global economic integration and growth, far from bringing a halt to population growth, will be the means by which the consequences of overpopulation in the third world are generalized to the globe as a whole. They will be the means whereby the practice of constraining births in some countries will be eliminated by a demographic version of the “race to the bottom,” rather than spread by demonstration of its benefits. In the scramble to attract capital and jobs, there will be a standards-lowering competition to keep wages low and to reduce any social, safety, and environmental standards that raise costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote