Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
24. Frantic, what? This doesn't need to get personal, does it?
Mon Jun 1, 2015, 08:03 PM
Jun 2015

The word "capital" is used in multiple ways in economics. One is the one you described, which is a factor of production. But when discussing international trade, and particularly "movement of capital", the financial definition is much more common. If you talk to any economist, they will be familiar with the both meanings of "capital". For example "undercapitalized banks" aren't banks that don't have enough office buildings to house their employees, they are banks that don't have enough cash and liquid assets. "Capital controls" are controls on movement of cash and financial instruments, not on the movement of buildings and factories. Etc.

It's a bit surprising that this is the first time you've come across this usage of the term.

And that is the kind of "free trade" that the TTIP is about -- the kind that would strike down environmental regulations as barriers to trade.

This is debatable, but now you've completely changed the subject. The OP wasn't talking about environmental issues, it was claiming that allowing certain manufacturing industries to move production to countries where it is cheaper is not "free trade." Which is plainly false.
agreed. "Corporate Rights" agreement. also "Corporate Welfare" magical thyme Jun 2015 #1
It totally sucks Art_from_Ark Jun 2015 #3
The big problem with this article is that it picks bad examples: DanTex Jun 2015 #2
No, it is not. rogerashton Jun 2015 #8
First of all, no, those aren't examples of free movement of capital. DanTex Jun 2015 #9
You said rogerashton Jun 2015 #10
I said "Allowing American companies to move jobs/production". DanTex Jun 2015 #12
Keep fudging. rogerashton Jun 2015 #13
How am I "fudging"? DanTex Jun 2015 #15
In the theory of international trade, rogerashton Jun 2015 #18
Yes, that's the macroeconomic definition of capital, and while it is used that way in DanTex Jun 2015 #19
You are getting a little frantic, here. rogerashton Jun 2015 #23
Frantic, what? This doesn't need to get personal, does it? DanTex Jun 2015 #24
K&R 99Forever Jun 2015 #4
So you have read something that doesn't even exist yet? Seer? Cryptoad Jun 2015 #5
1. enough has been leaked for us to see it's no good. The ISDS chapter alone is enough. magical thyme Jun 2015 #6
80% of the GDP covered by the TPP is already covered by "free trade" agreements. jeff47 Jun 2015 #11
It's a transference of power from nation states to corporations. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #7
Exactly, but those that worship money are blind to the harm it will do. Rex Jun 2015 #14
"Free trade" is actually privatize profits - socialize costs/losses... Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #20
Basically its the crowing of corporations d_legendary1 Jun 2015 #16
Only in the sense that the EU Charter and the US Constitution were 'free trade agreements'. pampango Jun 2015 #17
This works in the US because we Are ONE nation, tpp involves many sovereign nations with Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #21
The EU is composed of many nations but it was created along "FDR" principles - strong unions, pampango Jun 2015 #22
The EU generally lifted all boats. The TPP is created only to lift the yachts of the rich... Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #25
Do we export anything anymore? xfundy Jun 2015 #26
Bombs, guns, mortars, tanks, and factory equipment once used here Elwood P Dowd Jun 2015 #28
Accordling to Wikipedia the type is trade agreement Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Stop Calling the TPP A Tr...»Reply #24