Pericles,
I have not ignored you.....I just have other things to do at times and can't always answer immediately.

What you mean to say is that you don't agree. Given your views on capitalism I'm not surprised.
I based my assertion on the triple bottom line concept.

Before you launch into anti Green rhetoric.

Let me suggest that the failure to take the true value of goods is caused by ignoring externalities.

I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.

In essence our disagreement is more related to the different view regarding the nature of capitalism and its Gausian unpredictability.
Given my dreadful prose all I can do is to point you to the book “Critical Mass” by Phillip Ball pages 275/279 . This will give you a flavour of my views of towards capitalism as it's practised and the folly to rely on it to the degree that the likes of some WA contributors.

The flaw in Col's logic as to liaise faire economics is well described.
Likewise I do agree with ball when he says that command government manipulation is also fraught with disaster.

I further agree with him when he says corruptions easily exists in the extremes of both capitalism and socialism.
I am a long time campaigner against those who give *absolute* answers and or argue by extremes ignoring the very much larger option *s* that can be derived from combinations in between the extremes.

I am resisting a detailed explanation on the grounds it will be a waste of time and that I'm not here to convince anyone of any thing just to encourage though.

I think you may be looking through the wrong end of the telescope, pelican.

>>If we were to look at a global wage/award system (as a possibility) I am not sure how it could be achieved without a global currency.<<

Nor indeed could a "global wage/award system" (errr... why would you want one, by the way?) be achieved without political harmonization.

Which, incidentally, has been a significant lesson learned from the Euro experience.

Nor does this convince:

>>... a global currency is not new. Gold was such a currency at various times<<

Well, exactly. Look at the history of the gold standard.

It lasted for less than 100 years, countries joined and left at different times, and it eventually proved unsustainable. That should be enough proof on its own that a single currency is unworkable.

And will continue to be, until the people of the world are united under a single parliament.

Let me know under what circumstances you see that coming to pass.

And there's no call to fret, examinator.

>>Pericles, I have not ignored you.....I just have other things to do at times and can't always answer immediately.<<

Don't worry, the questions will still be there when you are ready.

Fair points Pericles. I am certainly not arguing for a global centralised government - heaven forbid.

I was thinking more in terms of trade, equalizing some of the conditions such as wages. I think it has to come eventually with the development of the Third World in any case ie. as a natural consequence of development - perhaps we are in that natural evolutionary process now.

The arguments of the interventionists only make sense if everything is just a matter of opinion and there is no such thing as objective truth.

But reality kicks in at some point. Facts have logical consequences.

I have asked each of you questions. You have not answered them. The reason is, because you can’t. They disprove you. So you just try to pretend that your opinion overrides the truth.

Mikk
You say that capitalism knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
1. How are you in any better position?
2. Given that values are dispersed in the subjective minds of six billion people, how are you going to know or carry out those values better than the people’s own choices based on their local knowledge and their knowledge of their own values?

GH
1. Who is this “we” who is to override the choices of the billions or millions?
2. How could the “balance” between free trade and intervention that you seek, boil down to anything other than your arbitrary opinion of what should be allowed or disallowed?
3. What is your mathematical disproof of Ricardo’s mathematical proof?

Pelican
1. Why should “the nation” be the one to decide? Why not the state? Why not the region? The town? The household? The individual? Why you?
2. If what you are saying were right, why wouldn’t society be better off restricting trade at every level including the individual level?
3. If not, why not?


All
1. How do you know that any given intervention produces a total net benefit for society however defined?
2. How is government capable of economic calculation to the extent of government ownership?
3. Whatever the resource problems we are trying to fix, how is abolishing economic calculation going to improve our response?

The problem is that the interventionists are trying to advance arguments, that are no more advanced now than they were when Ricardo demolished them 200 years ago. When challenged on this, all their arguments degenerate either into name-calling of one kind or another, or assuming what is theirs to prove.

Because Peter as far as policy goes we work at national level in the main ie. the national interest. We do not have a global centralised government we have local representation under our democracy. These representatives are our representatives hence via them hopefully we might one day get to have some influence as to what is in our best interests. We can do that while being mindful of obligations to others at the global level.

That does not mean there are not areas that deal squarely with the individual such as the right to acquire property.

"If what you are saying were right, why wouldn’t society be better off restricting trade at every level including the individual level?"

That is just getting silly. For the same reason as above - it would be against the national interest. What about the rights of farmers not to have to compete with exploitative labour costs. If some farmers/producers/manufacturers are doing the right thing by their workers and in relation to governance etc why should they be penalised or disadvantaged by a lack of duty of care by other suppliers? Not to mention more importantly the impact on the developing world. Why do many people in the developing world continue to go malnourished while the food grown on their soils is exported overseas?

As for who decides? Who do you think should decide? There should be some type of fairness principle at play. Human beings should be able to design a system that is more win-win than me-me.

Peter Hume,

The book makes the same point for interventionist side too and it absolute I have to agree. But as I said either extreme is equally flawed.
I simple argue that digging a fortress and being one eyed about either extreme is silly.
Part of this economic conundrum is as the headline puts it free trade
(I would add as it is practised now) is indeed Misplaced.

what we most often have on OLO is two idealised, theoretical sides equally arguing with evidence that suits their personal scientifically unsupportable theories while ignoring the equally valid opposite.

What makes it worse is that most people argue not with objectivity but viscerally and in the case of political parties blatantly manipulate the ill informed without any regard for responsibility or real morality. Both are more Malthusian than anything else.

The sad thing is that this mentality simply promulgates the theory that we are animals and animals we shall stay and to hell with anything else.