In a discussion with a friend regarding free trade, whereing I propose permitting any foreign worker to come in and work, He raises the following objection:
If you cannot control the flow of people into your country and you cannot limit the transfer of wealth out of your country, then you have no power to stop invasion, no one needs a military conquest if they can simply move their own citizens into your nation and have them transfer your nations wealth to their own.
I respond:
Controlling borders does not need to include controlling trade. I suppose these uncontrolled citizens would somehow subsist without spending money in the local economy? Of course, the business would have to be owned by a foreigner, as well so he could repatriate all his profits. To make this effective, there would have to be a massive cartel.
How far off base am I? It seems it would be an enormous undertaking, more so than direct invasion to build what I view as a "money pump". There already exists a repatriation of money from the US to Mexico to such a degree that it is in the top 3 source of national income (supposedly). Further, it seems an oversimplification as only one nation attempting this would be working against the trade its target nation had with all other nations. And somehow it would have to be self sufficient to the degree that it did not "lose" money to other nations that in turn put some of it back into the "invaded" nation.
I think that free trade is actually one of the easiest aspects of 'free markets economics' to explain because it can be properly explained even if we take things in "aggregates" or according to the current framework. It's much more difficult than trying to explain how law can be provided by the market. The objection raised by SteveZissou's friend, for example, can be addressed even if we take into account the current framework. I mean, how do you steal wealth from a country by sending productive workers there (thus reducing your own productive capacity and increasing your enemy's) to create wealth and then shipping this wealth back to their native countries? I don't see how one country can impoverish another one by doing that. This objection is really silly, to be honest.
Frederique Bastiao:Actually that is an even better deal to Americans than if the Mexican worker had spent the US dollars he's earned,
Notice that this deal went from "impossible" to "even better".
DD5,
To be more clear. There are two possibilities of what he will do with the money. Either he spends it on US goods, or he doesn't. I was showing that in either case we don't lose anything.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
SteveZissou's Friend:If you cannot control the flow of people into your country and you cannot limit the transfer of wealth out of your country, then you have no power to stop invasion, no one needs a military conquest if they can simply move their own citizens into your nation and have them transfer your nations wealth to their own.
Along the lines of what Jonathan Catalan wrote, your friend seems to be operating under the false assumptions that 1) wealth is a zero-sum game and 2) wealth equals dollars. He's also operating under the assumption that "the country" is one giant piece of property owned jointly by its citizens. If that's the case, then why (presumably) is there a construct known as "privately-owned land" inside "the country"? Land can't be owned exclusively by two or more people at the same time - it can only be owned exclusively by one person, or by all of them jointly. Finally, your friend is advocating aggression in the sense of telling others who they can and cannot let on their own property.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
The framework is fallacious.
Nobody is denying this. But, saying this misses the point.
By using this framework, you are already conceding to what you need not coneed to.
You're not going to persuade someone of the merits of an entire framework they don't understand. When you're responding to these kinds of questions posed by people who are not going to spend a lot of time with you, what's the point of saying something that's going to go right over their heads?
Countries have no intentions just like "all the Jonathans" have no intentions.
Ugh. Ok. Then the intentions of the bureaucrats who make up those governments. Anyways, my point still stands; you, again, missed my point. I never said countries have intentions. I said that's a question someone you're arguing with can ask you.
And honestly, there is no point to go on if one does not understand this.
Not everyone wants to isolate themselves from people who don't understand praxeology, lol.
The point is that once you refute the mytical collecive, you don't need to go on the defense for free trade any longer.
My point is that while this is great if you have the time, it's not so great if you're having a quick debate with someone operating in a completely different framework as you.
DD5: Frederique Bastiao:Actually that is an even better deal to Americans than if the Mexican worker had spent the US dollars he's earned, Notice that this deal went from "impossible" to "even better".
You said: "What if the Mexican goes home with his inocome and doesn't spend it on US goods?
If you wanted to say that the Mexican could hoard his income indefinitely you shouldn't have added "on US goods", because if he wants to spend it, it will have to be on US goods, period. There's no other option to him if he wants to spend the US dollars.
I wanted to say I am reading all the posts and I wanted to say thanks to all of you. Would that I had learned this when I was younger.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Ugh. Ok. Then the intentions of the bureaucrats who make up those governments.
Ugh. We're talking about free trade and free markets. Not how bureaucrats intervene and screw everything up. Wrong argument.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Not everyone wants to isolate themselves from people who don't understand praxeology, lol.
What does isolation have to do with not conceding to fallacious reasoning? A person says we need to be energy independent. You ask him in response whether this means that he is worried that he has no oil refinaries in his private backyard? Why is that suppose to fly over his head but not all the aggregate money flows explanations?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:it's not so great if you're having a quick debate with someone operating in a completely different framework as you.
But the point is that they're not using a different framework but simply being inconsistent. How many economists do you know that explain why Jonathan trading with Dan is beneficial by aggregating all the Jonathans and all the Dans?
Just wondering if anyone saw the relevant article on The Good Krugman.
SteveZissou: Would that I had learned this when I was younger.
Would that I had learned this when I was younger.
I know the feeling, Steve.
DD5, why continue to quote me out of context and misconstrue my point. I'm not making that argument. I used it as an example of a follow up question someone you're debating can ask you. My point is that within the context of the debate posited in the OP, your response is not as perfect as you think it is and my response not as bad as you make it out to be.
What does isolation have to do with not conceding to fallacious reasoning?
You're too obsessed with these "concessions". It's an amateur debate between two people. I gain more than I lose. For all we know, maybe I'll lead him to do research of his own that may one day lead him to change his framework entirely. You're too caught up in a black/white argument.
I don't see how the question is relevant. We're talking about some random guy the OP knows.