This is non-sequitur. The fact that value derived from labour is required to exist for value derived from trade to be generated does not mean that either category of value is less real.
Labour gets you from 0 to 1. Trade gets you from 1 to 100. Labour generates value by adding to what’s available. Trade generates value by multiplying what’s available. The observation that zero multiplied by anything is still zero does not invalidate the fact that multiplication is still more powerful than addition. It just means that one cannot exist without the other if you want to have more than zero.
It is not a non-sequitur, I’m arguing against a claim you made;
trade is equally as valid as value created from the production of resources or services
I think you’re overstating trade and downplaying labor here. It’s not the trade that’s multiplicative, it’s labor saving tools that expand what an hour of labor can accomplish. It’s why the modern exponential explosion in economic activity correlates to industrialization, and not expanding trade routs.
I don’t agree. The explosion in economic activity is not solely because of industrial advances. The global supply chain is extremely well-connected, and it’s this system of global trade that is the real oil of the modern economy. There is almost nothing more advanced than a wheelbarrow that can be economically made without involving some aspect of global trade. Sure, industrial advances are part of it, but it’s the trade that makes any of the products worth anything.
A machine that can manufacture a million wheelbarrows in one hour produces extremely little value unless those wheelbarrows are traded.
If you want to see what shutting off trade does to a country, take a look at the current happenings of United States.
But it is labor that facilitates the logistical work! The someone has to drive the trucks, load the boats, log the inventory. It’s all still predicated on labor!
This is non-sequitur. The fact that value derived from labour is required to exist for value derived from trade to be generated does not mean that either category of value is less real.
Labour gets you from 0 to 1. Trade gets you from 1 to 100. Labour generates value by adding to what’s available. Trade generates value by multiplying what’s available. The observation that zero multiplied by anything is still zero does not invalidate the fact that multiplication is still more powerful than addition. It just means that one cannot exist without the other if you want to have more than zero.
It is not a non-sequitur, I’m arguing against a claim you made;
I think you’re overstating trade and downplaying labor here. It’s not the trade that’s multiplicative, it’s labor saving tools that expand what an hour of labor can accomplish. It’s why the modern exponential explosion in economic activity correlates to industrialization, and not expanding trade routs.
I don’t agree. The explosion in economic activity is not solely because of industrial advances. The global supply chain is extremely well-connected, and it’s this system of global trade that is the real oil of the modern economy. There is almost nothing more advanced than a wheelbarrow that can be economically made without involving some aspect of global trade. Sure, industrial advances are part of it, but it’s the trade that makes any of the products worth anything.
A machine that can manufacture a million wheelbarrows in one hour produces extremely little value unless those wheelbarrows are traded.
If you want to see what shutting off trade does to a country, take a look at the current happenings of United States.
But it is labor that facilitates the logistical work! The someone has to drive the trucks, load the boats, log the inventory. It’s all still predicated on labor!