NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/consumer/21136

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky misc.consumers:21136 sci.electronics:21488 soc.culture.japan:12799 misc.education:5527 misc.entrepreneurs:3732
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,sci.electronics,soc.culture.japan,misc.education,misc.entrepreneurs
Path: sparky!uunet!beauty!josh
From: [e-mail] (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: America doesn't have a clue: (was DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN? - Off track!!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:23:35 GMT
Lines: 65

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Sternlight) writes:


>Joshua_Putnam is simply wrong when he asserts that free trade is
>based on ethical and moral principles. It is not. It is based
>on a formal economic theory, to which a chapter is devoted in
>every introductory economics testbook I know, called "The
>Theory of Comparative Advantage." The history and legislation
>on this is incontrovertable, and _Putnam will find it to his
>advantage to read it before sounding off.

I am well aware of the more recent attempts to demonstrate the
economic advantages of individual liberty.  That protecting human
rights has economic benefits is nice, but beside the point.  What
is the moral justification for allowing the government to prevent
mutually-advantageous voluntary trade among consenting adults?
You have never addressed this in any of your self-righteous
blather.  Your narrow-minded insistance that only economic
equations may be used in debating economic policy is pathetic.

>Many ideologues have attempted to get a free ride on this issue
>for their favorite positions; _Putnam mentions a few such
>positions. They are, however, a propaganda advocacy attempting
>to get a free ride on what is actually a quantitative mathematical
>economic theory (equations available on request from your
>friendly neighborhood economics professor).

What is the value of individual human rights in this set of
equations?  If you deprive a person of the right to trade freely
for mere economic reasons, is there any reason under this theory
that we should not simplify urban redevelopment by coldly murdering
all the people who would otherwise demand compensation?  (Assuming
of course that their economic output was less than that expected
of the redevelopment project.)

>Since the Japanese violate the equations, the theory doesn't
>apply to them. that takes us to the alternative development
>in economic theory, Mercantalism.

In terms of human rights, however, the actions of the Japanese in
no way justify your attempts to suppress Americans who desire to
profit by trade with Japanese companies or individuals.  If you
could apply your Mercantilist pipe dream to the Japanese without
trampling on the individual rights of Americans, perhaps your
position would have merit.  As it is, however, by blocking free
trade you injure both parties in the transaction, not just the
Japanese.  The theory of individual liberty applies to Americans
who trade with Japan just as much as to Americans who trade with
Detroit.

>_Putnam shold not confuse how politicians and others attempt
>to sell policies based on economic theory to the public with
>the economic theory that makes the policies valid or invalid.

If politics were defined exclusively by economics, you might well
be right.  If slavery were economically efficient, would you
support it despite the gross immorality of the institution?  Or
is the immorality of slavery just a smokescreen used by politicians
to sell democracy to the public?  Does anything besides raw
economic efficiency enter into any of your calculations?
--
 [e-mail]    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: [e-mail]