Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20247)	2/28/2002 3:14:38 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Frank, On your request for some discussion of free trade, I have a few very unthought out thoughts. 1. The term "free trade" is an ideological construct. It's always hard to debate such constructs since the point of their construction is to (a) conceal rather than reveal and (b) as such they carry little evidence with them. 2. Liberalizing trade rules in any given industry or across all trade items for one country produces a matrix that's hard to evaluate in terms of goods and bads. Given the fact that the Bush administration is completley in bed with the large global companies (check appointments to almost any branch of government) and the Clinton administration was almost as bad (though their labor constituencies kept them ever so slightly more honest--I don't mean labor is right--I only mean the Clinto folk at least listened to them) it's hard to get a good reading of what any specific policy proposal to liberalize trade will do. 3. Much discussion about free trade, as befits an ideological construct, does not say what sort of benefits, at least in any concrete way, are likely to accrue to which populations. A good, serious discussion would be helped by that kind of specificity. 4. Much has been made of the textile industry. I think you said prices would be lower for American consumers with liberalized trade. Let's say that assessment of benefit is accurate. How do you balance that against the job loss in the American textile industry? What should be done about those folk, many of whom won't or can't move, couldn't get other jobs if they did so? Should either the government or some of the companies who benefit from trade liberalization be asked to do something for these workers? Etc., etc. 5. On the general claim, that "free trade" produces a much better globe, are we talking about more than very large corporations having much larger playing fields in which to roam? In what sense would that benefit those world citizens who are increasingly worse off over the past two decades, at least relative to the better off? Well, let's see if I've done enough to get LindyBill to his computer keyboard! John

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20247)	2/28/2002 3:15:01 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

do freer markets lead to less repressive governments? Kind of a "Chicken and egg" question, Frank. It takes a Free Government to allow a free market. This "Free Market" question seems to be one that we could debate endlessly. As an aside, the one major thing I give Clinton credit for was NAFTA. No Republican President could have got it through Congress.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20247)	2/28/2002 9:34:05 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I don't think poverty abroad has much to do with terrorism, which has occupied our thread discussion so much, and lots to do with politics of repression I would concur in part. However, I opine that since many of these people have been poverty stricken for centuries, it has more to do with envy and a sense of inadequacy as disparity rise between the west and the rest of the world. And this is not to say that western nations haven't exploited undeveloped countries, but hey.. even here in the US, we were exploited by the Europeans as we were developing, yet we were able to maintain our sense of identity as a nation and maintain our independence despite foreign influence and capital. No.. I lay the blame pretty squarely on the cultural aspects implicit in many of these cultures where corruption is permitted to permeate to the bottom layers of society. Everyone is on the take in one form or another, and paying off politicians and military officials is common place. After all, they just leave their countries and retire on the Riviera, or the US... But I'm not going to take the responsibility or blame, as an American, for their government leaders being able to perpetrate such crimes. As for free markets decreasing the level of repression, it's possible that this might be the case, since external pressure from foreigners wishing to engage in investment in the country requires some adherence to basic rules of law and property rights. And since repression seems to be symbiotic with corruption, free markets seem inplicit to developing free societies. Btw, I just had to get my last "jabs" in at the individual you mentioned. I really don't care what someone's opinion is, liberal or conservative, so long as they aren't being intellectually dishonest and wasting our time. Hawk

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20247)	2/28/2002 10:17:41 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi frankw1900; I agree with you 100% about our trade policies being damaging to the 3rd world. In addition, it adds a political element to the whole thing. My big complaint, in addition to the textiles you mentioned, is stuff like sugar. We are the best food grower in the world, why are we protecting our sugar industry? The side effects are not good in Central America, except in that they give the US government another stick to beat the little countries into submission. Not that I have anything against beating little countries into submission, it's just that we already have so many other ways that we don't need to use one that allows their wealthier citizens to scrape cash out of our middle class. -- Carl