that doesn't change my statement
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
To rewrite the statement: Economic theory has a single justification for separating domestic and foreign trade. In domestic trade, capital and labor move freely. In foreign trade they do not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wraithburn
1/ this seems like a taxonomy of academic departments I don't care about the distinction between domestic and foreign trade. That has nothing to do with whether free trade requires free travel. It does not.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @wraithburn
2/ A blacksmith can sell a shovel to a farmer without either of them setting foot on the other's land. A man in Georgia can sell a computer to a man in Maine without either of them leaving their home state. An American can sell a movie to a Chinese without any travel.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @wraithburn
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted Prometheus 2.1
3/ Except for a very very very minor amount of "the ship ties up briefly to load cargo", free trade has absolutely nothing to do with free movement of people. Free movement of people is not a precondition. Thus I entirely disagree withhttps://twitter.com/wraithburn/status/1356621905516765188 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
So selling my services as a ditch digger is not considered trade?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wraithburn
You said that free movement of people is REQUIRED to have free trade. The vast majority of trade does not require free movement of people. If we repealed the H-1 B regulation, we'd have 99.9% as much trade afterwards as we have now.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @wraithburn
Perhaps your argument is "but if we only have 99.9% of trade, then we do not have TRULY FREE TRADE", and that's really pedantic and boring. It's like saying "until people can own hydrogen bombs then they have NO right to keep and bear arms". Oh? The other 99.9% isn't 99.9% ?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @wraithburn
The entire argument is based around the non-central fallacy. You WANT to discredit free trade, and so you set up an argument where X, which we all dislike in the absolute crazy limit is REQUIRED to get free trade, and since we all dislike X, then free trade is also bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
The logical argument sets up a break between the two _only_ if Free Trade has no limits. So if I understand you correctly, you are not disputing the logic chain, you are disputing the axioms.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
> So if I understand you correctly, you are not disputing the logic chain, you are disputing the axioms. I dispute the logical schema. If I argue that * free cooking involves eating ANYTHING, even dogs or humans * eating dogs and humans is bad * therefore free cooking is bad >
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @wraithburn
I would say that that is a spegy, pendantic, rationalist, Less Wrong kind of argument, because 99.99999% of cooking anyone ever wants to do is not eating humans or dogs, and therefore you dragged in a non central example, and the result was retarded and wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
Everyone understands "cooking" to be the norm. Adding a modifier, modifies it. Saying it is "freeer" than "cooking", but obviously doesn't include cannibalism as all Right Thinkers know is spergy the opposite direction. You have to define your terms.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.