"Free trade" can be zero-sum

By -
When what is meant by "free trade" is domination of the world by corporate elites.

Kevin Carson explains.

Comments

  1. Josiah Neeley8:36 AM

    Is it not really free trade if the U.S. has a navy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silas Barta2:48 PM

    If you look at the core of what he's saying is "not free trade" about it, it's Yet Another Argument against all of intellectual property. Not necessarily wrong, but not the kind of thing I think you'd endorse, and not really a damning argument for how it's not "trufree" trade.

    So, the new trade pact will make it harder for you to rip off the formula for Viagra that other people produced at significant expense? Woe is you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more