Vitaliy,

>> Market economy !=Free Trade.  Market economy is more than that as it 
>> has to live with many shortcomings, it has to take care of many 
>> details, and making things happen.

> I never said that market economy == free trade. However, the more 
> restrictions you have, the closer you are to a command economy.

May not be you, but there was some implying so.  Like contrasting N and 
S Korea economy, the main difference and cause is communism and market 
economy.  Not free or non-free trade.  Volume-in-trade is a side-effect, 
not the main driver, is the score - the result, not the cause.

>> And Free Trade != Trade, "free trade" does not invent trade, trade 
>> exists long before that and before market economy.
> Not true, free trade is the original kind of trade. What kind of trade 
> barriers existed in primitive societies?

Too many: slavery, landlord exploitation, tribal restriction, tribal 
bias, gate-fee, gate-control, control of transportation vehicles, 
corruptions, permits (they have permits), family-biased activities, etc. 
  Then again, we have to agree to the definition of "free trade".  The 
default definition now definitely is a totaly mismatch to old societies, 
and therefore discussion here will not have a convergent.

>> The greatest plus about "free trade" is people are cheating on rules 
>> and words to trade than through gun, canon, slavery and colonization.  
>> I am inclined to believe that "free trade" staying around the unfree 
>> area is better, unless the world become one nation. Then this becomes 
>> a moot point.  When the strong nations cannot take advantage of the 
>> "free-trade" rule to gain, they will resolve to another means.  The 
>> previous ways are definitely not better.
> 
> I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. What is "unfree area"?

The examples listed earlier, "free trade" is a false front for many 
other barriers putting up to gain advantages on the other parties.  And 
if you are convinced that the strong nations are willing to trade fairly 
than your notion of "free trade" can exist. But I believe otherwise.

>> If "trading" is equal as in the economic theory, then we should have 
>> seen many poor nations become rich, but after so many years the 
>> figures show that poor nations stay poor.

> There are plenty of examples, including your own country. Just over one 
> hundred years ago, Germany was not much wealthier than India or China. I 
> can find the relevant economic data for the 1800's if that will help 
> change your mind. ;-)

It wasn't trade, it is the political system that become stagnant.

>> The tiger economies are the exceptions but the credits go towards more
>> to their culture and altitudes,
> China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are the "poster children" of the 
> free trade movement, but they are not exceptions. Just ask Gerhard. :-)

The 4 tigers are: S Korea, HK, Taiwan and Singapore.  But a total of 4, 
is too few to be a norm.  BUT their "riches" are still under probation. 
  AND they were too small to be a threat then.

>> Guess, the Zen inside me wants Market-economy, the NGO, etc to direct 
>> the "freeness" of trade, and not the other way round.  "Free-trade 
>> ism" is what I am afraid.
> 
> You cannot have truly free trade when some bureaucracy has control over it.

So we are in agreement that "free trade" exists on paper, I am less 
afraid now :-)

Cheers, Ling SM









-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist