Gilbert,
I agree in principle with what you say particularly with Marx.

The problem that seems to be missed it that a theory can be logical but from a White Christian perspective but not to others who aren't burdened that culturally imposed limitation on reasoning.

The question to me is does Free Trade Ideology benefit all concerned or as in the case of White Christian Logic, perhaps not.

If there are known 'victims' i.e. where the third world comes in contact with say Western corporations (coffee, coco, bananas) have all been subjects of substantial worsening of the malaise of the third world. Specifically buying cartels, exploitative pre market manipulation (GM Seed)

The ideologies of the afore mentioned are merely blunt tools to work on for "where the rubber hits the road".

Given that there are too many imponderables and a forced (mismatching) of cultural externalities where the overall benefit is dubious then one has to say imposing free trade on 3rd world countries is clearly Misplaced.
Ergo the headline is accurate.

Back to the philosophy. The problem is that western philosophy particularly economic can neither pass the scientific tests thus they are either flawed - woefully inadequate to explain the phenomenon - and or based/filled with faith and belief.

What they aren't is universally correct. therefore imposing it on a lessor equipt culture/nation is Misplaced.

So long as there are massive externalities any ideal must either be highly tailored to the circumstance/flexible or aspirational.

I am aware , perhaps not as well as you on the basis of philosophical thinking but to me it largely tries to box the human element.
Unlike Peter I believe the facts suggest the theory not the other way around.

I've been away.
I am really irritated by the garbage being spruked here. Why can't you all just admit that don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about. Forget about Marxism and all the ideology you've all soaked up and parrot ad nauseam! Marx's whole edifice is built on the premise that human life under capitalism is a demeaned and wretched state of alienation, in every sense of the word. This is the mindset behind the triumphalism of Francis Fukuyama, for instance, who proclaimed "the end of history" with the fall of the Berlin wall. The human race had reached a state of consummatum est: Liberal democratic rational capitalism was our crowning glory as a species! Do any of you feel we've defined in practice what it is to be human?
Never mind that capitalism raises a minority to a state of supercilious conceit in their imagined achievements or their material glut, or that the rest of the "minor" bourgeoisie, puffed-up with worthless self-importance, worship at their shrine. Never mind that capitalism impoverishes ten times as many to the same obverse degree, or that it is destroying the planet (and will destroy us) in the process of maintaining its rapacious spread and its gross disparities. The key theory of Marx, and it is necessarily invisible to you lot (its truth or falseness) behind a veil of ideology (might as well be six inches of lead!), is that human beings are exploited and demeaned in their role as the means of superfluous production: for capital. Under capitalism, they do not produce or practice anything from their own spirit, in an uncompromised fashion; they do not experience productive life as something natural. They do not experience life as something spontaneous. You cannot appreciate the subtlety of this point without a little philosophy, or without stepping out of your cherished delusions.
..But that's your problem!
I'm finally persuaded that I'm wasting my time here and I won't disrupt your "deep" meditations further. GO FIGURE!!

What examinator is calling facts is nothing but his own prejudices going round and round in circles.

The structure of his belief system is this:
• assume socialist interventions are viable
• on seeing evidence to the contrary, blame the problem on free trade
• when tactic 2 no longer works, assert that there is an unspecified ‘third way’
• (on examination, the third way always turns out to consist of more government interventions)

But the original problems remain:
1. socialism is not viable because of the economic calculation problem
2. externalities cannot be resolved by just passing the decision-making to politicians or their delegates

Persistence in these irrational beliefs is no better than belief in rain dances and is sheer culpable ignorance.

Squeers religious devotions to Marx are laughable. Wake up and smell the coffee Squeers! Marx was wrong and you haven't got a clue!

Well, this is interesting.

There are basically two conflicting imperatives that are being conflated here. The first is that of maximising productivity and the second is that of minimising individual disadvantage. They are not fully reconcilable, it seems to me.

On the one hand, if production is to be maximised, then there must be incentive for those in control of capital to invest that capital, whether the control is vested in individuals or in groups of various kinds,including Governments. On the other, there is no doubt that there are some people who lack the capacity (for various reasons) to be sufficiently productive to support their own life (not lifestyle).

All of our social democratic experiments have been attempts to reeconcile these two factors. The question then becomes "what part of our free-trade-generated productivity is to be used to support those incapable of contributing?", which inevitably devolves to a discussion about who gets what and a broadening of definitions of incapacity. For example, it is now deemed that having babies is an incapacity worthy of broad social subsidy, not a biological function that directly rewards the participants. Noone actually argues that the participants are not rewarded by the act, they claim that the act is a net disadvantage if one wishes to compete in other aspects of social endeavour. Where does this end?

If I decide (of my own free will) to do something else that is inherently personally rewarding (let's say taking a year or two off to sail solo around the world), does that justify a social subsidy? After all, by doing it I am reducing my capacity to compete in other aspects of life, such as having babies. Surely I should be compensated?

Where this all leads,of course, is that no matter how productive a nation (or the world) is, there needs to be a clear increase in the standard of living achievable by being productive. If there is not, then the productivity will eventually fall, as people make the decision that productive activity is not worth the effort

Peter Hume “Persistence in these irrational beliefs is no better than belief in rain dances and is sheer culpable ignorance.”

But such is common, everyday socialist / collectivist bulldust, Peter

As politicians have said in the past

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

So too the ideals of Gilbert, here are pure protectionism and we saw how that has failed especially in the “workers utopia’s” of USSR and eastern Europe, the places people risked their lives to escape from...

One big socialist prison camp.

Of course the “moderate socialists” (aka Lenins useful idiots) claim their theories could never lead to the horrors and mass murders of communism....

.....anymore than a maggot cannot turn into a house fly.

But you might consider yourself privilege to even get an opinion from Examinator. He mostly criticises the opinions of others and declines to express anything of his own.... after all on the “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” thread

Where he did say

“I repeat I have no interest in proselytizing any solution simply because of the level of defensive galloping inertia that abounds here.”

Which I think qualifies as “Pomposity personified”

As for Squeers... he is like a boxer trying to punch above his weight, he lacks the stamina to follow the reasoning, has a hissing fit and decides to find a different pond to paddle in... something shallower, maybe a Marxist forum would suit him well, there they just call each other comrade and pretend they will all have meaning after the revolution.

Which brings us to good old Karl, the fumbler. He lived in England, expecting his revolution to be fired by the English masses and considered the Russian peasantry as sub-human.

as is said of Marx and Engles

“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".”

With all this uncertainty in governmnet, I sure am glad things are now back to normal, with antiseptic and Col Rouge blessing us all.

Col, though you are Stern (and proudly so I am sure) I am happy with the return to Col Rouge.

Anti, welcome back. You have been missed by all here at OLO.