Why does trade matter?

Author: Lemming
Russia
Embargoes
Isolationism

Posts

Total: 63
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Trouble is, what you are suggesting seems to be what usually ends up at as an instantaneous failure of communism.....Namely Tyranny....The Country according to Lemming, becomes the Country according to Lemming....Or Putin, or Kim etc.

Doesn't international trade facilitate/necessitate a certain level of international cooperation. Therefore a certain level of international accord?
Topic's author
#32
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, there's no reason a Democracy 'couldn't choose to focus on self sufficiency,
Though when I say if 'I formed a country, it 'does sound dictatorial.

Certainly trade 'can form strong bonds between countries, and likely often does.
'Or negative bonds if a country is forced into trade, taken advantage of in trade, reliant on another country for trade.

I like cities that if they experience a natural disaster, they are able to handle it themselves, without big government needing to step in.
I like cities that can fix their own schools broken heater, rather than requiring government funding.
I like home gardens, for times of emergency or cheap vegetables.
I dislike 'large trading and uncertain jobs reliant on such and others.
#33
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Lemming
north sentinel island is literally in the stone age BECAUSE it lacks resources
#34
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
You are advocating for a shittopia. Read The Wealth of Nations. Our world of abundance is built on the very thing you're decrying. 

I like cities that if they experience a natural disaster, they are able to handle it themselves, without big government needing to step in.
I like cities that can fix their own schools broken heater, rather than requiring government funding.
I like home gardens, for times of emergency or cheap vegetables.
I dislike 'large trading and uncertain jobs reliant on such and others.
Wouldn't it be nice if all of this just grew on trees, eh? Why don't we all just be self sufficient and rich and not depend on anyone? 
Wow, didn't think of that. 
Topic's author
#35
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@badger
You're very sarcastic last couple posts,
Topic irritate you, or something in your life?

If some communities took a more active interest and role in their communities,
I don't think some would require big government 'so much.

Home garden is a reasonable addition to homes that have the capability for such,

I've not said anyone would be 'rich, if they focused more on self sufficiency,
Though perhaps some countries 'would become richer, if they invested in their own infrastructure, rather than relying on trade,
#36
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
Home garden is a reasonable addition to homes that have the capability for such
The average person needs over 2.5 acres worth of farmland to produce sufficient food to live, and gardens are significantly less calorie efficient than large farms so each household would need about a 20 acre garden just to scrape by in poverty on that plan, and people in poverty don't generally own 20 acre plots of land.

Legit question... are you related to alec/underdog?
Topic's author
#37
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
A person wouldn't need to life 'purely off their garden,
For it to help them out some.

I am not related to Alec/TheUnderdog.

Eh, mainly started thread as I don't understand economics all that well,
So curiosity of details in claims.
#38
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Topic irritate you, or something in your life?
Probably more the latter.  I'm a bit disgusted at that dude fucking his dog too and everyone playing nice with him. I'm being harsh with you. 

Though perhaps some countries 'would become richer, if they invested in their own infrastructure, rather than relying on trade,
Where do you think Saudi Arabia got the money? When you have the money, sure, you can do whatever you want. If you can cut costs and risks by producing for yourself, do it. You can build your own cars. You can move to solar energy. You can have a space race. Whatever you want. But the wealth of nations is predicated on trade, division of labour, and specialisation.

It's not hard, dude. If two people are producing the first carts, one of them is reinventing the wheel. The first cars, one is reinventing the engine. All the complex apparatus required for extracting and refining raw materials, reinvented. The apparatus required for precision engineering, reinvented. I think Russia has pretty much zero precision engineered exports. It's oil, wheat, and washing up liquid. They got a whole lot of reinventing to do. You seriously underestimate the enormity of the industries behind products. We should just do it all ourselves is a beyond ludicrous idea. 

This is how the world got rich. We specialised.
#39
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming

The weird thing is though, that there is actually one example in history that I can think of (literally just one example though so not a great argument) of a trade between two countries being objectively bad for one of those countries, yet you haven't actually mentioned that one yet.
Topic's author
#40
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@badger
I imagine Saudi Arabia got the money from oil, (Finite Resource)
What will they trade, when they run out of oil?
If they have nothing to trade, how will they eat?

I see your point, but once you have X amount of people, material, and land,
X expectations,
Doesn't seem to be a 'need for other countries.

Flowcharts can be fun.

Oh yeah, watch me mention 2, kind of.
China, as Britain force fed them opium,
The Native Americans trading land for X.

Convergent evolution, Parallel evolution,

Technologies, advances in economies, land, exist, even without interaction.

Did Russia and America need to trade with each other to reach space?
#41
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
I imagine Saudi Arabia got the money from oil, (Finite Resource)
What will they trade, when they run out of oil?
If they have nothing to trade, how will they eat?
They'll trade whatever they can. The money they make in oil will be invested into their infrastructure. They'll become self-sufficient in ways. They'll specialise. They'll create new exports. 

I see your point, but once you have X amount of people, material, and land,
X expectations,
Doesn't seem to be a 'need for other countries.
Then you don't see my point. There isn't an absolute need for other countries. But if you want to be self sufficient in everything, you'll be broke. The countries that specialise and do trade with other countries that specialise will be lightyears ahead of you. It's your country on its own figuring things out versus the entire rest of the world trading expertise. 


#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Cities are run by governments.

Ok, so maybe power devolved to a local authority, but still government that raises revenue through taxation.

And home gardens are great, I wouldn't be without one....But far to many people are too lazy to bother.
Topic's author
#43
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@badger
You assume that they 'will invest in their own infrastructure, build jobs, be 'able to appeal to other countries by these other jobs.
But if the population booms with no thought to infrastructure, disaster awaits, (Seems to me),
There is a reason that many boom towns in America, are now 'Ghost Towns,
Because 'Trade, was placed over self reliance,
Though I admit another option might be 'other types of trade,
And I'll admit some locations have greater difficulty in being self sufficient than others.

Sorry, I'm still going to have to think a while about what makes a country rich,
I'm not certain that it's 'just trade.

I prefer small government,
It's also a concern when one 'allows others to control their power,
For example when an individual is reliant on their partner in a relationship,
There is an imbalance of power, sometimes unhealthily so,
As they 'must obey the wishes or whims of their partner, trapped by reliance.

Understandable that some people are too lazy,
Or wish to trade convenience for. . autonomy, I often do so myself.
But I admire Switzerland's gun policy,
Which may not so much be individuals acting 'freely, and choosing to join the military,
But the idea of the number of households that possess guns, practice gun safety, impresses me.

It 'might be that I am wrong in my view that everyone should be greater misers with their money like me,
Though 'I'm not even so great of a miser as I'd like to be,
But I think People'd be better off providing 'more for 'themselves,
Than their 'buying from others,
In their consumption of media, toys, junk food.
. .
Self and Community driven activities, hobbies and crafts, food baked in one's own oven.
#44
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
You assume that they 'will invest in their own infrastructure, build jobs, be 'able to appeal to other countries by these other jobs.
No I don't. Countries will fuck it up. Countries will be out-competed by other countries. You posted an example with Porto Rico. And probably countries will be exploited too and probably it's a hard market to break into. 

It's capitalism. The success of capitalism is its ability to ruthlessly reinvent itself. It's spooky shit but it makes for the best shit. 
#45
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
Flowcharts can be fun.
Click it tho
Topic's author
#46
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@badger
Adaption 'does seem to me a strength of Capitalism.

I did click on it,
I agree that the chart might show 'your thought process,
But I don't agree that it shows the 'truth.
#47
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
Adaption 'does seem to me a strength of Capitalism.

Adaption is the entire strength of capitalism. It's survival of the fittest by proxy. 
#48
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
I don't agree that it shows the 'truth.
It's a series of paths that show multiple potential thought processes, what part of it was not true?
Topic's author
#49
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Irrigation is an ancient technology, though it does improve with material, tech, money.
I don't agree that nations 'need trade with one another, to better their circumstances.

I also think that when there are X people, jobs can logically become a closed circle system.

Trade can also worsen circumstances, preventing nations or communities from creating their own infrastructure,
Leaving them at mercy of foreign nations whims.

It's 'better to be self-sufficient.

. . .

Mind you, I'm not 'against trade between nations,
But I don't agree with the Holy Grail status you give it.

And I think nations ought be able to provide themselves the essentials, 'before trade.
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,965
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
There's also the idea that trade creates partnerships and alliances.
Topic's author
#51
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
And I agree that's true,
But I don't think a country should make an item that is invaluable for them, depend on other nations.

13 days later

#52
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
@badger
I found a website that lets people play a game that is pretty much Settlers of Catan under a different name for free. I propose we play a few rounds with the house rule that Lemming isn't allowed to trade.
Topic's author
#53
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Hahaha,
Still, I stand by my opinion.

It's a matter of principle and game theory.
It is said, that Diogenes threw away his drinking bowl upon seeing a youth drinking water from cupped hands.
Though I'm a consumer and hedonist 'myself,
I can acknowledge value, in people who live a stoic or spartan lifestyle.

Allowing too much trade, gives other countries leverage on  you,
One wants leverage on other countries, 'not the other way around.

It can weaken the sense of national and cultural identity.

It prevents people from self sufficiency in times of disaster.

It 'strengthens people's 'servitude to big business, big government.

I think there are decent reasons to avoid what I would consider excessive trade with other countries.
Though in other posts, I've also acknowledged items I think 'need be traded, or when circumstances make self sufficiency difficult.
#54
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,915
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Lemming
@oromagi
Ori..."...."In one modern view, trade exists due to specialization and the division"..."
Humans are more of the generalization type due to the complex results of the brain functions i.e.. humans have mental ability to adapt to life on land { cold or hot }, ocean { above and below }, and outer space.

The many componets needed to adapt these specical-case set of circumstances, requires a specialization on specific technologies and then the sharing of ideas, and item parts to create the more complex technologies to adapt to various circumstances.

 Some other animals have a community aspect to them, yet they do not have the scope of ideas and technologies needed to adapt to so many varied environmental circumstances, in such relatively short periods of time and not  thousands of years of biological evolution.

Generalization { macro } = community and tends toward expansive broad considerations
...............................multiplication by inclusion................

Specialization { micro } = individual and tends toward contractive inward considerations
..............................multiplication by division.............
#55
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
All you need to know about why trade matters can be summed up by the Native American Indian. They thought it didn't matter.  Oh sure they traded with settlers for alcohol and guns, but failed miserably to see the bigger picture beyond their hunter gather mentality at the time. Trade and progress  killed the Native American Indian if you want to be honest about their demise. They were doomed the very second Christopher Columbus stepped foot off his boat and established trade routes. As if they ever had a chance against anyone who embraced trade and progress. Trade and progress come hand in hand.  As if the Native American Indians would still be living a hunter gatherer life style today if only the Europeans didn't come to America. Bwhahahahahah

Topic's author
#56
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@sadolite
While I'd say trade 'did matter, between Native Americans, and then new cultures they encountered,

It's difficult to see it as relevant as the effect disease might have had.
Though,

I'm unsure of accuracy, one site I've read says,
"Once Koch and his colleagues collated the before-and-after numbers, the conclusion was stark. Between 1492 and 1600, 90% of the indigenous populations in the Americas had died. That means about 55 million people perished because of violence and never-before-seen pathogens like smallpox, measles, and influenza."

Though,
It's true that some Native Americans used Wampum,
which "the Colonists applied their technologies to more efficiently produce wampum, which caused inflation and ultimately its obsolescence as currency."

There was also the trade of guns,
Which some sources claim made tribes far more dangerous to the fellow tribes, given inequality of weapons,
But Native Americans 'still generally, had no means to make their own gunpowder, guns, or repair of them.

So I have to admit trade matters in such a case as the Native Americans and those newcomers they encountered.

And while I suppose one of the answers would have been to trade more, 'selectively.
What really mattered was the lack of population,
And ack of unity (Understandable, maybe like saying all Europeans should get along just for being Europeans, but look at all those wars between themselves)

If it was a civilization game, with Native Americans as one people,
The answer would have been to unite everyone,
Then retreat the main body far away, while using stalling tactics whether military or diplomacy to slow the loss of land,
Trade with other European nations, appealing to game theory of keeping America from growing too strong, or humanity.
That knowledge, craftsmen could be gained,
Then the building of infrastructure,
Mining, factories, medicine,
Then at least the 'holding, of what one has.

Still,
I place Unity and knowledge,
Above trade.
#57
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Lemming
It's not that the Native American Indian didn't trade enough, it's their total and complete denial of the innovations, inventions and the future. They had an opportunity to seize upon it in the early days but choose to stick their heads in the sand and try to continue to live the hunter gather life style. I will give you the disease argument , but again that was inevitable to. It would be peer speculation and unprovable but the death rates could have been much lower had they not lived in tribes and shared spit with everyone in the tribe. 
Topic's author
#58
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@sadolite
Well, I doubt the Native Americans then, saw themselves as 'one people,
Maybe not now either.

British, French, Germans, certainly fought among themselves enough in history, thought themselves different people, I'd imagine.

Might be difficult to innovate and invent off the sleeve, realize or 'care about implications.
'Lot of peace treaties were signed, that proved for naught,
And again, separate peoples, quite often,
Different nations meeting the new wave of outsiders.

Which isn't to say Native Americans didn't resist, 'attempt to innovate,
Lot of wars between the Colonists and Natives.

Which, death again, by musket ball rather than disease,
'Prevents one from innovating or 'meeting the future.

. . .

I've heard people mention a book I've not read,

Jared Diamond wrote a book titled Guns, Germs, and Steel which is a brilliant (and quite lengthy) answer to this question. I will try to briefly summarize the key insights.
  1. Societies do not advance beyond a hunter-gatherer lifestyle until they began practicing plant and animal domestication. Settling down and having food surpluses is a prerequisite to specialization of labor, which enables technological development.
  2. Candidates for plant domestication are rare and tend to occur only in certain climates. The fertile crescent, China, North Africa, New Guinea, Central America, and South America each independently discovered plant domestication. And a big difference between old world domesticates (wheat, barley, oats, etc) and those of the new world (maize, potatoes, squash, etc) are that the ones from the old world are much higher in protein, which is the macronutrient most limited in plant based diets.
  3. Candidates for animal domestication are likewise unevenly distributed across the world. The migration of humans to the new world coincided with a massive extinction event of large mammals. The animals present in the new world were likely hunted to death by clever tool-bearing humans - unlike animals in the old world that co-evolved with our brainy ancestors and eventually became cattle and chickens and horses and so on.
  4. The Native Americans had a later start on the road to technological development than European and Asian societies because their ancestors moved into their current location long after the ancestors of those other societies. Migrating vast distances on foot limits the amount of technology a group of people can take with them, so this effectively resets the clock.
  5. The axis of the Eurasian continent is from East to West, which makes it easier to adopt crops in distant geographical regions. In comparison, the axis of the Americas runs North to South. When you move to a different latitude, a number of important factors change: length of day, length of growing season, average temperature, amount of light received, and so on. Maize from Central America took a long time to reach Eastern North America because cold-hardy varieties had to be bred first. The same thing happened with other crops.
There is much more in Guns, Germs, and Steel, but this short introduction gives you an idea of the factors at play.

Addon, additionally, I'd argue Native Americans 'did invent, even some things Europeans didn't have,
Just situations were different.
#59
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Lemming
The point is in an even more succinct way is this, the Native American Indian was doomed the very second people started crossing the Atlantic Ocean. You can add all the other factors to their demise but it really makes no difference. People came, progress came and everything else that comes with it. They would not, could not and did not adapt to the inevitable onslaught.
Topic's author
#60
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@sadolite
Well, I 'do think they 'might have adapted better,
And that the odds were against them,
Still, they
'Might have won some battles, wars, trade agreements, diplomacies,
Roll of the dice, some situations, ends.
And arguably 'did adapt, given Native Americans are still alive

And possibly they adapted and did their best better than I know,
I 'don't know very much about the history of Native Americans.
.