i dont mean literal contracts. i mean agreements to provide labor for pay at a price they (not we as the collective) determine. you are reading meanings into things i am not saying. read what i say more literally. if i want the right to buy guatamalan tomatoes without my taxes going to the jersey tomato grower, it doesnt mean i will choose to not buy jersey tomatoes. in fact i love jersey tomatoes and local produce in general and buy it all the time. the key is that i like to voluntarily pay for things instead having my tax dollars taken and given away before i can choose where it goes. i want my money to go to a food producer because i bought his product, not because he has lobbied to take my tax money. when the guatamalans are selling the tomatoes for too much, i guess that opens up the market for the jersey tomatoes again. why would the guatmalans want that? why do they want to lose market share? you seem to be missing a key point. in order to screw the market, you have to control EVERYTHING. if you are president of guatamala, nicaragua may not be so happy about joining your price-control scam if they can keep their prices the same and watch the profits roll in because they are selling more volume while you raise prices. the only actor in this game that can screw the market is the government, becaue they can actually force their will upon people. only the government has the power to coerce you to do anything, or take your money. huh? in my system we are free to buy whatever we want, and american growers would love it if the el presidentes of third world countries raised prices. plus, if we kill subsidies, and less taxes, we are richer and can afford pricier american food if we want.
right, red wants to work more, and has a sick kid. screw js indeed. i dont understand why you are using an example that demonstrates my point. a free system would allow you cheaper labor as well as helping the person who needed it the most. like i said, read my words literally. i do not see why we need anything to be made here. that is not the same as what you claimed i meant which was "You think we shouldn't farm at all" which is obviously completely different. i think we should do whatever we want to do. if that is 70% agricultural/industrial and 30% R&D, that is fine. if that mean we are 100% non-agriculture/indutrial, that is fine too. i dont think we should or "shouldn't" be one or the other. i think we let that shake itself out without manipulating the system so we have the % of whatever that you think is correct. what we should or shouldnt do is up to whatever people want. if they can make money farming, fine. if they cannot, and they make their money designing computers. thats fine too. either way they eat. it isnt necessary that we have actual farmers for us to be able to get food. because capital exists in many forms and can be exchanged. this question would matter if we were cavemen. but our economy is so advanced that you can produce zero food and manufacture almost nothing and still be the richest man in the world. and of course that is the case, the richest man in the world sells computer programs. the person who has the power is the one with capital, regardless if it is food or computer operating systems. we can produce things besides food and still be wealthy.
while I agree with the basic laws of supply and demand that martin forever overstates, I think Red and Marc et al have been stressing a point that is overlooked by martin. this would hold true if you were instating a utopian market from scratch without political influences locally as well as internationally. there's clearly no way around this and although it would be best its simply not the real-world. therefore, we must take it for what it is. martin you are simply too idealistic which simply doesnt equate given the variables already in place. while common sense dictates free market....oh well ill have to continue this later but good points on both sides.
we are not working in a zero sum game. by allocating recources efficiently (i. e. getting labor where it is the cheapest) we increase efficiency. we increase the size of the pie, everybody wins. we pay less for our products. we have more money to buy more products. the cheap laborers have more money, they too buy more products and develop faster and soon enough they are wanting even more expensive and complex products. the kind we think up and make. free trade leads to growth, and more for everyone. protectionism lowers the standard of living for everyone. idealistic? no no no, the term you are looking for is "awesome".
And I'm sure world leaders tremble in fear at the thought of a shortage of microsoft office products. He should write a program that will free the world from dependency on food and oil. He could be king of the world if he pulls that off.
