The Elections in France, 2017

[filghy2]

From what I've read there seems to be one important difference between Le Pen and Trump. Le Pen appears to be a genuine populist nationalist. She might be misguided in many respects, but she seems to be genuinely motivated to improve the position of the native-born working class. I haven't seen much evidence that she favours small government or pro-rich policies.

Trump, on the other hand, is clearly a phony populist. He has manipulated the white working class to support him by appealing to their prejudices, but it's clear from what we've seen so far that his primary agenda is to improve the position of people like himself (ie the conventional Republican small government, pro-rich agenda).

[holzz]

From 1945 to the 1990s, most countries had tariffs or quotas. It's only the WTO, NAFTA and EU that reversed the trend. True free trade is very recent, and we're going towards bilateral free trade, over multilateral. This is what Trump himself, and Mrs. May of the UK have both said they want with each other and other countries.

[Budweiser]

I am all for Le Pen too. I really hope she wins.

Was real disappointed Wilders did not win the Dutch election.

[filghy2]

From 1945 to the 1990s, most countries had tariffs or quotas. It's only the WTO, NAFTA and EU that reversed the trend. True free trade is very recent, and we're going towards bilateral free trade, over multilateral. This is what Trump himself, and Mrs. May of the UK have both said they want with each other and other countries.

So free trade between two countries is good, but free trade between more than two countries (NAFTA is only 3) is bad? What exactly is the logic of your position?

Fyi, the movement toward freer trade did not suddenly start in the 1990s. The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (predecessor of the WTO) commenced in 1947 with the aim of "substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...iffs_and_Trade As the chart in my previous post shows, the major advanced economies had fairly low tariffs from the 1950s onward.

How about doing at least some basic research to check whether things you say are correct? It's not hard these days. "It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

[holzz]

Well no, since even in the GATT days there were significant barriers to trade. It's also moot if free trade leads to better economies, and it's not really helping France now since their economy has been shit for years now. So yeah, you're right, it's good to "research", since i've "researched" that economics is not an exact science and that there is more to having a healthy economy than no barriers to trade.

[broncofan]

Well no, since even in the GATT days there were significant barriers to trade. It's also moot if free trade leads to better economies, and it's not really helping France now since their economy has been shit for years now. So yeah, you're right, it's good to "research", since i've "researched" that economics is not an exact science and that there is more to having a healthy economy than no barriers to trade.

What you're saying implies free trade might be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a healthy economy. A country can have economic problems even with fewer trade barriers, but why does that mean they should do something that can harm their economy more? Economics is not an exact science, but there are theoretical reasons free trade should be mutually beneficial to all countries involved in it. To have this discussion, you should discuss the empirical research that has been done to test Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. There are critics of it but most of the criticisms apply to very specific economic situations.

One theoretical condition under which free trade may be harmful for a particular country is in the the case of a country that specializes in the export of raw goods rather than manufactured goods where opening up their domestic industry to worldwide competition causes a depletion of natural resources. For such goods, instead of specialization leading to economies of scale in production, it leads to the price falling in the marketplace from increased supply. But for a developed country like France, I don't think there is a reason to believe they would benefit from economic isolationism.

However, the issue might be more complicated than I understand. Perhaps you can do the research and tell us why the theoretical reasons free trade tends to be beneficial do not apply in France's case.

[broncofan]

it's not really helping France now since their economy has been shit for years now.... there is more to having a healthy economy than no barriers to trade.

This line of reasoning is like an alcoholic who says "my life is shit. Not drinking hasn't worked for me so I might as well drink. Obviously it takes more than not drinking excessively to be happy."

[holzz]

So free trade alone makes a healthy economy does it? or is it a mix of stuff, like infrastructure, labour relations, inflation, government policy, education, etc? Free trade is seen as best, but NO economist would say it's perfect, or that it alone means a healthy economy. What free trade does China have? Do you all Deng Xioaping did was just relax barriers and make it successful? lol.

[holzz]

What you're saying implies free trade might be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a healthy economy. A country can have economic problems even with fewer trade barriers, but why does that mean they should do something that can harm their economy more? Economics is not an exact science, but there are theoretical reasons free trade should be mutually beneficial to all countries involved in it. To have this discussion, you should discuss the empirical research that has been done to test Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. There are critics of it but most of the criticisms apply to very specific economic situations.

One theoretical condition under which free trade may be harmful for a particular country is in the the case of a country that specializes in the export of raw goods rather than manufactured goods where opening up their domestic industry to worldwide competition causes a depletion of natural resources. For such goods, instead of specialization leading to economies of scale in production, it leads to the price falling in the marketplace from increased supply. But for a developed country like France, I don't think there is a reason to believe they would benefit from economic isolationism.

However, the issue might be more complicated than I understand. Perhaps you can do the research and tell us why the theoretical reasons free trade tends to be beneficial do not apply in France's case.

because it's already part of the EU, and has essential free trade within it (single market).

it's not arrogant, but merely fact. Free trade alone can never just make an economy strong, it's many other factors than that.

France has been shit due to bad labour policies and too much regulation. Free trade alone won't solve that. Any economic problem has to solved by the trigger/cause, like any issue in life.

[flabbybody]

France has not benefited from free trade because they don't make much of anything that people want. e.g. French wine. overpriced and overrated. It's been losing market share in the US for decades