I have a feeling this will probably be the last time I reply on here, at least with this discussion in mind, because this isn't going anywhere. If there is something specific you wish to go into, we can have that chat on the other political thread instead...

[quote=@catchamber]
It still applies, because not all aspects of the economy are as free as their international counterparts.
[/quote]

No, you don't seem to get it. You're addressing my point about the article being a failure to prove instants where a place is better by being outdated, but that was all you had when I asked my original question. You haven't provided any other examples, so it no longer applies...if there is a different aspects that proves otherwise, it has yet to be provided. I also don't agree that freedom even has to equate to 'has the best everything', so this entire line of argument won't likely go anywhere.

[quote=@catchamber]
Advocating a philosophy that advocates for exploiting people will likely cause exploitation, making the idea as dangerous as its believers.
[/quote]

Capitalism doesn't do this. Also, 'believers' of capitalism are anyone who has ever been in a supermarket. I swear this line reads like something you could actually say about socialism or its counterparts and it would prove far more accurate... 

[quote=@catchamber]
Such is interdisciplinary debate.
[/quote]

Without actually clarifying, I honestly question if even you knew exactly what all that word salad was supposed to be saying...

[quote=@catchamber]
"The aim should be to ensure all have the opportunity to succeed at optimizing their trades without reducing productivity across the board."

Which part of this doesn't make sense?
[/quote]

I've asked (several times now) for a real-world (or at this point, any) example of what you're talking about. Which I've yet to receive, and I don't take "lul, giving a shit" as an example of this ideal in practice.

[quote=@catchamber]
A and/or B is better than A, B, A and B, or A or B, because you have more options. Which choice is useful in which condition depends on the context. In terms of economics, I think societies should be integrated but independent of each other. It's safer that way for individual societies and the ensemble.
[/quote]

Disregarding that there is two options presented, and the idea of their being more options is redundant. Because the two options are broad. So, are speaking about isolationism and globalism being 'useful in conditions and context'? Because that seems to be what is being answered, though specifically some of it had to do with free trading. If so, it's absurd to say "Sometimes, having no/next to no free trade will prove great for a nation's economy." It's a middle ground you're presenting that shouldn't even exist...

[quote=@catchamber]
Analysis: Cop out.

Rebuttal: Can you quote the relevant section to prove your point?
[/quote]

I refuse to take anything said seriously, because of arguments like this. (I also kind-of refuse to believe you're actually that misinformed on such a thoroughly dismantled talking point...)

http://www.pigsandsheep.org/gun-rights-lesson-747-nuclear-bombs/