Why Protectionism is bad

The Conscise Encyclopedia of Economics ^ ^ | Jagdish Bhagwati

[hedgetrimmer]

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, stated in a 1993 Los Angeles Times op-ed column that NAFTA "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War...." NAFTA, Kissinger admitted, "is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system."

[hedgetrimmer]

Because they are losing their sovereignty to the OAS for one reason.

Since its adoption, the Democratic Charter has been formally invoked in dealing with the alteration of constitutional order in Venezuela that occurred in April, 2002 and to send a mission to Venezuela headed by OAS Secretary General Gaviria to facilitate national dialogue and to broker consensus solutions to the political impasse and polarization that threaten democracy in Venezuela. The United States has fully supported the important work of the OAS in Venezuela in fulfilling the objectives laid out in OAS Permanent Council Resolution 883 to bring about a “ peaceful, democratic, constitutional, and electoral solution” to the political stalemate. What is important now is that the international community, led by the OAS, ensure that the dialogue table agreement signed last week is implemented, and that resolution 833 is carried out to its conclusion.

Ambassador John Maisto, U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States
Remarks to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
June 3, 2003

[hedgetrimmer]

In 1989, when I first worked in multilateral diplomacy at the OAS as deputy to Ambassador Luigi Eiunadi, thinking about how the OAS could be active in strengthening democracy was in its infancy, and playing a role in fighting corruption and evaluating individual country performances in fighting narcotics was anathema. But the OAS has changed. It must now change again to meet new challenges. These include:

applying the Inter-American Democratic Charter to all the hemispheric countries, leaving no country out;

enhancing all the OAS entities that deal with strengthening democracy in efforts to make the institutional changes needed to permit social mobility through equality of opportunity;

doing realistic work with institutions in member countries to complement the march toward a Free Trade Agreement for the Americas—the key to jobs, growth, and fighting poverty effectively;

following through in ways that address realistically the post 9/11 security threats from international and home-grown terrorists, and international crime;

helping countries deal effectively with burgeoning domestic crime at a time of high citizen insecurity in both urban and rural areas throughout the hemisphere;

and implementing the new governance mandate of the upcoming Special Summit of the Americas.

An OAS Update on Democracy and Development in the Western Hemisphere

Ambassador John Maisto, U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States
Remarks to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
June 3, 2003

[Cronos]

You're correct about the united world thing: http://www.eurplace.org/thehague.congress/history/history-ind.html says that too.

But the FTAA is purely trade and nowhere near the level of inter-governmental unity as laid down in the EU.

Furthermore, don't you think countries grow organically in any case? The US expanded from a strip of land on the east coast to coast-to-coast. It would be inevitable that we (note I emphasis that America would be the dominant force) will take over Canada and Mexico?

[rdb3]

I doubt Adam Smith had any take at all on Marxism, seeing as he predated it.

Correct. Adam Smith died in 1790. Karl Marx was born in 1818, and didn't come out with his writings with Engels until the mid-1840s.

Kinda hard for a dead man to agree with anything.

Show 'em my motto!

[Gunslingr3]

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Let me try again: "If those insitutions removed socialism, would you oppose free trade?" Free trade means the removal of government erected barriers to trade. For it or against it?

[hedgetrimmer]

If the global institution remains, there is no free trade. If it is "free trade" then one individual would contact another to set up the deal would they not? Then removing socialism from the global instutition still does not make for free trade.

Why don't you rephrase the question. If the global institutions that regulate trade were dissolved, could there actually be free trade? Does nationality and devotion to your country impact "free trade"? If so, in what way? Does "free trade" trump everything,even human instinct and love of country, in reality?

[Gunslingr3]

If it is "free trade" then one individual would contact another to set up the deal would they not?

THAT is exactly what free trade is. Are you for it or against it?

[kevao]

Free trade is the absence of trade barriers among countries. Whether or not the U.S. spends money on hunger or development programs has nothing to do with free trade: We don't have free trade now; and, as I recall, we're doling out some $15 billion for AIDS in Africa.

[hedgetrimmer]

What if an individual wanted to import oranges infested with mediterranean fruit fly because he could get it really cheap? Is it free trade if that individual brings something into the country that destroys the value of the oranges grown here and the property of the people that own them? Are you for or against this?

If that individual wanted to bring in cows with mad cow disease for the slaughterhouse, because he can give a better price to the consumer for mad cow meat, is that free trade? Are you for that or against that?

[Gunslingr3]

You're never going to actually answer, are you?
I'll gladly answer your question, but it'd be nice if you'd squirm less than a politician about answering mine.

[hedgetrimmer]

I don't think you understand your own question. If there is "free trade" and anybody can export or import anything they want to into the country, do you think that a person should be able to import cows infected with mad cow disease for the meat industry because they are cheaper and will give the consumer a lower price? This has everything to do with "free trade".

For that matter, do you think someone from the US should be able to export assault weapons and shoulder fired missiles to Iraq, if they can find a willing buyer? This question has everything to do with "free trade".

[Gunslingr3]

I don't think you understand your own question.

But I do. If you want to discuss the importance and efficacy of border inspections for fruit, etc. I'd be glad to. But first actually answer the question. Do you favor protectionist tariffs, or do you favor free trade?

[hedgetrimmer]

It has nothing to do with border inspections. You are saying that a person in this country can import infected produce into this country because free trade enables that person to give lower prices to the consumer if he does so.

This also means that stopping his produce at the border, or turning it away means he is unable to conduct trade freely, so border inspections cannot be allowed in a free trade environment. So to understand your question, not only should businesses that deal in labor be able to move freely from labor market to labor market because they can get labor at a lower price elsewhere, a produce importer should be able to go to whatever market he can and bring in whatever quality produce he wants because he can get it cheaper elsewhere. Its all about the cost of goods and services, correct? This is the meaning of free trade in your view?

BTW, border inspections for labor cannot be allowed in a free trade environment. That means that mexican laborers under a "free trade" environment cannot be stopped at a border, turned away or deported for entering the country. This also falls under the pervue of "free trade" in labor markets. It is the basis for the president's amnesty program and the subject of his meeting with Vicente Fox last weekend.

In a "free trade" environment you can't stop anybody selling labor at the border because in a free trade environment that person has a right to sell his labor to a willing buyer, right?

In this sort of environment where labor can move freely from country to country, what happens to the US Constitution? It does not hold when there are no borders, no citizens, and only business interests, laborers and consumers.

And is it free trade when a taxpayer is forced to pay housing and medical costs for noncitizens who come into the country as part of a "free trade" labor force? The people who wrote the FTAA believe this.

[Gunslingr3]

It has nothing to do with border inspections. You are saying that a person in this country can import infected produce into this country because free trade enables that person to give lower prices to the consumer if he does so.

Never said that. Stop with the strawmen. I'm not taking your bait until we start with a foundation.

Are you for or against protectionist tariffs? Quit squirming, answer the question, and I'll gladly discuss all of your strawmen.

[hedgetrimmer]

I am not squiriming at all. I am reporting to you exactly what the free trade agreements, say, especially the FTAA and mexican illegals.

[Gunslingr3]

I am not squiriming at all.

Are you opposed to protectionist tariffs?

[uncitizen]

Where did you get the idea that protectionism is good and free trade is socialism? Have you completed Econ 1A yet?

[hedgetrimmer]

Have you read the thread? The WTO and the FTAA(free trade agreement of the americas) set up trade agreements to "eradicate poverty" through tax money giveaways like the Millenium Challenge fund and USAID.

They build into their agreements that the US and other "rich countries" will give money to the "least developed countries" and build up their roads, power supply systems, water supply and delivery systems, and develop infrastructure technologies like cellular phones and communications so the "least developed countries" can compete with us in the technology sector.

They say there can be no free trade, if the US doesn't bring the wealth level and standard of living up in the foreign countries to match ours. That is the reason you see "downward harmonization" of wages, labor,manufacturing and food safety laws in this country. That is also why you see these massive giveaway programs to foreign countries that don't go through Constitutional channels like Congress passing them.

The Millenium Challenge fund, in case you haven't heard about it was announced in Mexico in Monterrey at an International Finance summit in 2001. It was not announced to the American people so most people don't know it exists. Its sole purpose is to give our tax dollars away outside of Congressional foreign aid programs so that the money cannot be regulated by Congress or its use tracked by taxpayers. The money is a complete giveaway, not even a loan because the poor "least developed countries" want grants not loans because that would make them responsible to pay them.

Multinational corporations like this taxpayer giveaway because then they can use the infrastructure we build to hire foreign workers to take jobs that would be done in the US.

The words in quotes come frome their documentation and definitions, I did not make them up.



If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

One more thing, did you know the manufacturing powerhouse China is considered a "least developed countrY" They are surpassing the United States in every way in manufacturing, yet we still give them foreign aid and we allow business to trade with their closed market communist economy. Go figure.