Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Trade isn't good for progress or innovation

rated by 0 users
This post has 10 Replies | 4 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 33
Points 1,515
MissMapleLeaf Posted: Fri, Nov 2 2012 8:46 PM

1. It lets cheap materials from abroad take the place of innovation

2. Ripping off inventors by letting the knowledge an inventor has to be exploited by other countries 

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 151
Points 2,705

If someone can take a brilliant invention and make it more affordable to everyone by using cheaper materials, I'd say that's progress.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

Your posts get more ridiculous at time goes by...

but I assert that, without trade, progress and innovation are impossible.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Nov 2 2012 9:18 PM

 we need to pay people a minimun wage of 100000 a hour not to trade

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Fri, Nov 2 2012 9:20 PM

Trade in our day often frees up skilled labor to doing more productive tasks because the number of people who are performing unskilled labor rises. It also allows for an increase in innovation by increasing the skilled labor and entrepreneurial pool, as well as raising general incomes. In a free market the process you're talking about is quickly corrected, because we are soon brought to the point where profit cannot be reached by not innovating, although in the short run you actually do have a very legitimate point with point 1.

As for number 2, that's entirely wrong. The fact that new ideas circulate mean that new companies can get their hands on it and new people can expand upon it. This increases the rate of innovation. If only on person ever learned about calculus that there would be general mathematical innovation? No, through allowing maths and sciences to circulate and become part of general knowledge instead of being highly centralized, infinite productivity and innovation has been achieved.

 

 

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 781
Points 13,130

No trade means no division of labor. No division of labor means that each person must be entirely self-sufficient, producing everything he consumes. Only a tiny fraction of the existing population could survive on this economic model, and would enjoy a standard of living similiar to what existed prior to the invention of agriculture. The OP is speaking about international trade, not trade in general, but this is only a difference of degree. Less trade means less division of labor means lower standards of living, etc. Protectionist trade policy benefits cartelized domestic industries at the expense of the consumer. That ordinary people like the OP (i.e. people who do not benefit but are rather harmed by protectionism) regularly advocate protectionism only goes to show how effective State propaganda can be.

As for intellectual property, it is not property at all, because it is not scarce. My using the knowledge to build X does not exclude you from using the knowledge to build X, therefore the knowledge to build X is not scarce, and therefore it cannot be property, as the only purpose of property is to define who has a right to use which scarce resources, so as to avud conflict over who gets to use those resources. It's the same for all forms of intellectual property: trade secrets, copyrights, etc. Intellectual property, rather, is a monopoly privilage granted by the State, which (like all monopoly privilages), benefits its holder at the expense of his competitors and of consumers. There's no important difference between the State saying only Bob can produce corn and only Jones can produce copies of a certain song.

apiarius delendus est, ursus esuriens continendus est
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Nov 2 2012 10:54 PM

So to what level should we restrict trade? National? State? City? Should all individuals do everything for themselves? Any cutoff point you choose will be arbitrary.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Fri, Nov 2 2012 11:00 PM
http://mises.org/community/forums/t/32239.aspx
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Fri, Nov 2 2012 11:53 PM

Malachi makes a good point. There is evidence that MissMapleLeaf is actually TronCat trolling us.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, Nov 3 2012 3:17 AM
 
 

Wheylous:

So to what level should we restrict trade? National? State? City? Should all individuals do everything for themselves? Any cutoff point you choose will be arbitrary.

Cells in your body trade nutrients even. We should criminalize that. Blood cells may no longer give oxygen to any other kind of cell! Blood-cell union!

Man, you could probably make one heck of an extended metaphor out of the cooperative processes of the body.


 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

1. It lets cheap materials from abroad take the place of innovation

2. Ripping off inventors by letting the knowledge an inventor has to be exploited by other countries

People complain about globalisation as if it is a new phenomena. But international trade on a large scale has been occurring for 100s of years. People benefit from cheap materials. People want the fruits of their labour, no one wants to work, if we can work less and get cheaper and more goods then that is progress. It is true that imports do impact the local industry as if it did not undercut local goods of the same type then it would not be viable to import the goods. But the amount of different types of goods that are viable to import is generally as a result of exchange rate differences and government regulations, tariffs and custom duties. I am not saying that without government distortions it would never be viable to import goods and those goods would never undercut local industry. I am just saying that the government distortions contribute to a lot of those problems.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with opening up the market to an international market. Everyone can try and copy inventions from people not only in their own country but all around the world and thanks to the internet we can share ideas from around the world a lot quicker and easier than ever before. it realy is a great time to be in the business of innovation.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS