Perhaps your amigo en Mexico should consider the inequities and inefficiencies of his government, as I pointed out It's far too easy to point the finger of blame at free trade. Far too easy.
Consider, if you will, if America adopted a protectionist policy and had no interest in trading with Australia. Then we'd have a reputation for being a nation of nativist thugs, interested only in ourselves, proponents of a sure-to-be-mocked America First policy. Look at how the European Union squawked when Bush threatened them with steel tariffs, which he was wrong to do. So what do you prefer - an isolationist, nativist America or one that is willing to open its markets to anyone willing to take advantage of them, and reap advantages in return?
And give your government some credit. Do you honestly believe that the Australian leaders are going to let us devious, imperialist Americans trounce your copyright laws? They might have "sold out" on Iraq, but surely they're not so stupid as to accept piracy as part of any FTA. Piracy violates free trade; it is not a platform on which free trade operates.
I have provided two links, which I dearly hope you'll read with an open mind. The first is from the libertarian Cato Institute. The second is from an American economics professor, and though his article is slanted toward what benefits the American economy, the same argument can be applied to any nation's economy.
You too, dear reader, can check the links out:
And here
* Taken from "Who Benefits from the Free Trade Agreements?" by John W. Warnock.
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
You have it all wrong, MEM.
If it's subsidized it's not free trade and the American's are keeping subsidies on their products.
Further, in the trade deal with Australia, the U. S. is protectionist - they refuse to open the dairy and sugar markets.
Zoellick is clearly implementing protectionist American trade policies as he flies around the world cutting (and forcing) deals.
I blogged a bit more, with links, last March under the heading of THE "CARGO CULT" IS ALIVE AND WELL - TODAY IT'S CALLED "FREE TRADE".
Take a look at it then let's talk.
2 - jadester
i would have mentioned the same as the reply above, except that i didn't know enough of the details to make it sound more than hot air, but i have heard enough to know that the US likes to undercut all competitors to an extent that they simply cannot compete
as for
"...But usually, what we define as "cheap labor" is simply a wage that we can't imagine living on but which suits the worker in a poorer country. For instance, I couldn't live on a wage of U.S. $5.50 per hour, but a Mexican worker could"
i was under the impression (i may be wrong here) that when inhumanly low-paid working conditions in other countries are revealed, it is not the absolute wage that is given, but the equivalent it would be if it were happening e.g. here in the UK or in the US. Hence when they say the workers are getting about £1.50 an hour, they mean that's what they would be getting if the same situation were happening here, hence it's *not* a wage that could be lived on.
The problem with free trade is that it's every country for itself. Whilst you may say this is as fair as it can get, that ignores the fact that some third world countries have crap economies at least in part thanks to the likes of the US, the UK, etc. and if we don't try to make amends to some degree things will only get worse for them.
3 - Doc
The exemptions on beef and sugar to protect American industries are also a real shame in this "kinda-free" trade act.
OZ is a a primary producer so blocking/limiting these kinds of imports to the US really hurts them and US consumers.
4 - Mike Kole
Check your history. The United States was once the third-world haven for low-wage work and production, and Britain was the economic king.
Did Britain embrace free trade, or did it erect protectionist policies to try to fight the unfair competition of the US, with its immigrant work force? Did their approach work?
Did the US remain a third-world nation of tenement dwellers or did it emerge into the greatest economic force ever seen?
Protectionism is stagnation and economic death. Hal is right that the US engages in plenty of it, and not just in sugar and dairy products. Add lumber, steel, and a host of others. US trade policy largely is repeating the mistakes the British made 100-150 years ago. If it continues, we will join Britain in the second tier of nations, while those that embrace free trade, include industry with low wages today, will surpass us.
5 - Hal Pawluk
Your basic premise in what you wrote your friend is wrong, too. That simply repeats the propaganda of the large multinational corporations.
MEM wrote: If free trade between nations did not exist, then economies would stagnate.
That's one of the lies I've seen propagandists like James Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute pushing. That statement is propaganda and false because there has never been real "free trade" in the history of the world, yet countries have engaged in trade forever. It's a "false dichotomy." (Goebbels would be proud, though.)
I wish you'd forget your religious conversion to the Cult of Free Trade for a few days and and take some time to look at the facts. I'll give you a number of links, but the others here are on the right track:
1. The U. S. is not a free-trader, it's protectionist.
2. Multinational corporations keeps chanting "free trade" to the gullible to enable them to export jobs and make huge profits, while getting huge subsidies and even tax-breaks from taxpayers.
3. It is not a partisan issue - Democratic and Republican Congressmen pass the laws - but this administration is particularly egregious in its application of protectionist policies. You can find lots of detail on this by doing a search a search on "Robert Zoellick" and "trade." Pay particular attention to the Aussie deal, Morrocco and CAFTA.
I'll be back.
6 - Hal Pawluk
Here's a short excerpt from a piece I blogged that discusses Glassman's position and gets into trade and jobs:
You can read the full piece at NEOCONS ON JOBS: ARE THEY TOTALLY LOSING IT? 2/16/04 And here are some links from that item:
Glassman's article on Exporting Lou Dobbs and John Kerry
Glassman on CNN's Lou Dobbs show 02/12/2004 interview
My piece was on off-shoring of jobs, so I also included:
7 - Hal Pawluk
Here's a list of items that are relevant to this discussion. Most are from the perspective of jobs lost because the "faux free-trade" we live under is simply a cloak for exporting jobs, while taxpayers subsidize the exporters.
I do build a clear explanation of what "comparative advantage" in trade really is and it's not what the "faux traders" would have you believe. The basic fallacy in their claims is that the concept of real Free Trade was predicated on "the immobility of factors of production." That's mildly exotic, but it just means that labor and capital (including profits) must remain within their respective trading countries. That doesn't happen today, with both jobs and money moving around the world at the speed of light.
Anyhow, I'd like to hear from you after you've read the items (I have contact links on my site). Each item can be printed separately for easier reading.
The myth of job recovery 01/22/04
Free traders and globalizers; waking up at last? 01/26/04
"Sending jobs overseas helps U. S." - More from our misleader 02/10/04:
Neocons on jobs: are they totally losing it? 02/16/04
Why your job is moving to Bangalore 02/18/04
A perfect example of "ignorance is bliss" on jobs 02/25/04
8 - Hal Pawluk
The Ludvig Von Mises Institute (guess where it fits on the political spectrum) article discusses a couple of items that should be read to get the full picture:
Second Thoughts on Free Trade
Clarifications on the Case For Free Trade
9 - Shark
Manning, you've probably figured it out by now, (which means you've either cancelled your internet service or cut off your own fingers so you'll never type again), but you're debating the wrong guy (Hal) on the wrong subject (outsourcing/economics).
Just nod your head, wink, or wiggle your eyeballs if you surrender...
(Although it didn't work last time something like this happened. I believe his name was... Custer...)
10 - Mark Edward Manning
Economists will have differing opinions on the benefits of free trade. All I do know, and what convinced me that the FTA could reap good for Australia, was that the opposition Labor party endorsed it.
This is what Labor wrote about the FTA, on their website:
Labor has reached the following conclusions:
The concern over John Howard's "giveaways" notwithstanding (the exemption of Aussie sugar being one of them), why would an opposition party endorse a critical FTA that people are nervous and unsure about?
Is it because, as Labor have noted, they still see it as an overall net plus for Australia? They have said so, and I believe them.
So, who does oppose the FTA in Australia? The liberal-Left Australian Democrats and Australian Greens. 'Nuff said.
Howard and his Liberal Party were wrong not to push harder to include sugar, and there's this concern over pharmaceuticals that might have been better examined too. I'll concede on those points.
Hal, I will yield to your obviously superior knowledge of economics for the time being. As with anything, time will tell if this FTA works to Australia's advantage. If it does, then any debate I have with you right here and right now will have been rendered moot.
11 - Hal Pawluk
Quoting opinions, even Aussie opinions, doesn't change facts.
It wasn't a free trade deal and the U. S. is actively pursuing and implementing a protectionist trade policy, while telling the gullible that it's free trade.
The supposed "benefits of free trade" cannot possibly be realized when there's no free trade.
I find it amazing how many buy into this adminstration's lies and then repeat them in public when the facts on the ground refute them as clearly as they do here.
Rather than letting it continue, free traders would do better to write their Senators and House representative and tell them to stop the subsidies and corporate welfare.
12 - Hal Pawluk
One more time: IT IS NOT A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT.
Didn't you read anything I wrote and provided links for (there are impartial sources there)?
If you did, how can you say: "time will tell if this FTA works to Australia's advantage." IT IS NOT AN FTA!
Pfui - I'm out of here.
13 - Shark
(Manning spots Hal's "Ptui, I'm outta here!" and is finally able to breathe again)
End of debate.
Call 1-800-555-RONG to donate blood.
===================
ASIDE: It's hard to guess the effects of a "FREE TRADE AGREEMENT" relative to "free trade" theory/models/sims, but since we've never actually SEEN a true Free Trade Agreement, it's hard to judge reality against the theories.
BTW: a FTA was spotted recently over Roswell, New Mexico -- but it quickly disappeared into the same black hole as Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force Meeting Notes.
14 - Hal Pawluk
I need to provide the correct link for Why your job is moving to Bangalore.
Aside from that, I really am out of here.
If you do want to discuss any of this, please use any of the contact links on my site.
15 - RJ
Hmm...
Color me confused:
Hal opposes Free Trade
Hal Opposes US Trade Policy
US Trade Policy is, according to Hal, NOT "Free Trade"
WTF?
As any first-year economics student knows, free trade benefits all in the aggregate, just as free markets do.
16 - Hal Pawluk
Unsurprisingly, your statements about my positions are wrong, RJ.
And your "first year economic student" is naive.
John Cassidy has an article in the August 2, 2004 issue of The New Yorker that might help you.