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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (212009)	7/13/2007 6:46:03 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 793996

I imagine global trade is the same as international law, requiring a certain amount of structure to be effective Most people don't think about what is required to support the global trading network. Uniformity of rules is the grease that makes the wheels turn smoothly. As a merchant, you avoid risk like the plague. A global order where the rules are diverse, non-standard, conflicting, and downright confusing represents a mammoth obstacle of risk. From the State's perspective, a multilateral treaty is preferable to many bilateral treaties with the same parties. Negotiating many bilateral treaties is quicker, more flexible, and you're apt to get more of what you want in the bargain. Whereas a multilateral treaty will take longer, be less flexible, and you'll get less of your "want-list" because it necessarily requires compromise amongst a larger set of parties. BUT - with a multilateral treaty you get a consensus of policy that creates a uniform rule among many actors in one bang, and uniformity of rules is the ace in the hole for a State's citizens, who are the primary beneficiaries from lower barriers to trade, more trade, and lower prices. That's what Thomas Barnett is always going on about - global rulesets that create prosperity. He's right. Ron Paul is wrong.