Win-win with AntiNWO

Free trade is gambling with winners and losers. Free trade is the most important fundamental of EU and it is garbage. EU is garbage and must cease to exist ASAP. NWO maniacs have been gambling with people's lives for almost seventy years in EU, since 1958. We stated that in AntiNWO's superb organizational and economic model, there will be only winners. All sides will benefit from specialization. This will be done with a little help from protectionism.

In Table A of Appendix 23C, the first three columns are the same like in Tables A, B, C of Appendix 23. We assume that country A is more competitive in odd sectors and country B in even, like in Table A of Appendix 23. As in previous examples, there is a 10% increase in production due to specialization. In Table A of Appendix 23, with free trade, A's GDP increases 28,2% to 512,7 billion while B's GDP decreases 17,5% to 330 billion although for both countries (A+B) there is an increase of 5,3% in GDP or 42,7 billion.

Is there a way both countries can benefit from specialization? There is a way with a little help from protectionism as it can be seen in Table A of Appendix 23C. A's GDP increases 4,2% to 416,6 billion and B's GDP increases 3,5% to 414,1 billion. For both countries (A+B), GDP increases 3,8% or 30,7 billion. Protectionism can turn a win - lose situation into a win - win situation and instead of winners and losers have only winners. How is this accomplished?

In the example, country A keeps 10% of the production in the sectors it is less competitive while B keeps 40%. Obviously, in real economy, the percentages a country keeps in the sectors it is less competitive will not be the same (in all sectors). Nevertheless, the same reasoning will be used. As it has been explained, the aggregate size of odd sectors in both countries (A+B) is 487 billion while in even sectors it is 313 billion. The ratio is 487/313 = 1,56. A is more competitive in odd sectors while B is more competitive in even sectors.

If the ratio was around 1 as in Table D of Appendix 23, both countries might benefit although it is not certain. But this is not the case, ratio is not around 1. Country B which has disadvantage in the ratio must keep more of the production in less competitive sectors in order to benefit from specialization. In Table B of Appendix 23C, one more country is added like in Tables A and B of Appendix 23B. A and B keep 35% of production in the sectors they are less competitive while C keeps 10%. In this way, all three countries can benefit from specialization. 

In Tables B and C of Appendix 23, the ratio is even higher 629/171 = 3,68. B must keep a much larger percentage of the production in the sectors it is less competitive. In Table C of Appendix 23C, A keeps 10% while B keeps 75%. In this way both countries can benefit. A's GDP increases 1,2% to 404,9 billion while B's GDP increases 2,9% to 411,6 billion. For both countries (A+B) GDP increases 2,1% to 816,4 billion.

The benefit is not much because not much of B's production goes to A in the sectors A is more competitive. Nevertheless, a catastrophic situation for B is turned into a win - win situation. With free trade B would have a 43,9% decrease in GDP and A a 52,2% increase (Table B of Appendix 23). One side is harmed tremendously while the other benefits enormously. With a little help from protectionism, both sides can benefit, not much but still both are winners instead of having a big loser and a big winner.

There is another way to approach this. B could exclude from trading some of the sectors as it is shown In Table D of Appendix 23C. Sectors 1, 5, 9, 12 are excluded from trading. A's GDP increases 3,2% to 412,6 billion and B' increases 1,6% to 406,3 billion. For both countries (A+B) GDP increases 2,4% or 18,9 billion. It is not much but we have two winners instead of a big loser (B) and a big winner (A).

B will not exclude these sectors for ever but until they become competitive. Suppose that A and B were very close in terms of competitiveness, not only overall but in every sector as well. In that case both countries would keep a large part of their production in the sectors they are less competitive. This would happen because the difference in competitiveness is very small.

So the difference in prices would be very small for the same quality of products. In sector 1, B is less competitive. But many customers in B would still buy domestic products if imports of the same quality from A were only slightly cheaper. This is shown in Appendix 23D. In Table A, country A is more competitive in odd sectors and B in even sectors. A keeps 55% of the sectors in which it is less competitive (even sectors) and B keeps 70% in odd sectors ( less competitive).

In this case we assume that increase in production from specialization is 5% instead of 10%. Both countries benefit but the benefit is small. This may require some protectionism to happen. In Table B of Appendix 23D, both countries keep 55% of their production in the less competitive sectors and it is not a win - win situation anymore. A benefits while B is harmed. In Table C of Appendix 23D we present three countries.

Like in Tables A and B of Appendix 23B, A is more competitive in sectors 1, 4, 7, 10. B is more competitive in sectors 2, 5, 8, 11. C is more competitive in 3, 6, 9, 12. A and B keep 75% of the sectors they are less competitive and C keeps 65%. Unlike in Tables A and B of Appendix 23B, all countries benefit but not much. When countries are close in terms of competitiveness in all sectors, benefit due to specialization is small because a) less competitive keep a large percentage of their production b) percentage increase due to specialization is small.

The example of Table C may require a little help from protectionism. If all three countries keep 65% of their production in the sectors they are less competitive, A and B will be harmed while C will benefit. This is shown in Table D of Appendix 23D. The only case they can all benefit while keeping roughly equal percentage of production in sectors they are less competitive is that of Table D in Appendix 23.

Bottom line is that free trade is garbage, EU is garbage and NWO is garbage. NWO monsters have been bashing protectionism for no reason. Of course when protectionism is used in a wrong way, it can be harmful. It it is used correctly, it can turn a win - lose situation into a win - win situation. All countries can benefit from specialization and there will be no losers.

In AntiNWO's superb Group economic and organizational model there are only winners. NWO - EU fanatics have caused enormous damage all around the world and especially in Europe with their totally erroneous ideas. They do not know what they are doing. NWO governments should be replaced the soonest possible with AntiNWO governments, especially in Europe.