-Caveat Lector-

from:
http://www.jamesbovard.com/
<A HREF="http://www.jamesbovard.com/">James Bovard</A>
-----
The Fair Trade Fraud
How Congress Pillages the Consumer
and Decimates American Competitiveness
by James Bovard
St. Martin's Griffin
September 1992
$15.95 U.S.
ISBN: 0-312-08344-0
-- Table of Contents --
from
The Fair Trade Fraud
 1. Introduction 12. Tariffs and Other Border Land Mines 73. Protecting
America from Foreign Bras 354. Pulling Numbers out of a Political Hat 65
5. A Bureaucratic War on Low Prices 1076. The Specter of Foreign
Subsidies 1697. A Crap Shoot for Protection 1968. The Failure of Gunboat
Economics 2279. Fair Trade on Capitol Hill 27210. The Morality of Fair
Trade 306  Conclusion 321  Acknowledgements 325  Index 326
INTRODUCTION
AMERICANS' freedom and prosperity are being sacrificed on an altar of
fair trade. Protectionists have wrapped themselves in a cloak of
fairness, and each year they discover new moral pretexts to further
restrict how American citizens may spend their paychecks. Fair trade is
a moral delusion that could be leading to an economic catastrophe.
    Congressmen are calling for an "economic war" with our trading
partners. Starkly protectionist legislation has been passed in recent
years by both the House and Senate, only to be stopped by presidential
vetoes. American corporations are now running advertisements that seek
to inflame hostility to foreign companies. "Fair trade" is widely
perceived as a panacea for the U.S.'s international economic problems.
    But, "fair trade" is one of the great intellectual frauds of the
twentieth century. The louder politicians have demanded fair trade, the
more U.S. trade policies have become a travesty of fairness. The U.S.
government has created a trade lynch law that can convict foreign
companies almost regardless of how they operate. Between 1980 and 1989,
the U.S. Commerce Department reached a "not guilty" verdict in only 5
percent of its investigations of foreign dumping. Over three thousand
foreign companies have been penalized since 1980 for selling their
products to Americans at prices lower than the U.S. government approved.
    When politicians call for "fair trade" with foreigners, they
routinely use a concept of fairness that is diametrically opposed to the
word's normal usage. In exchanges between individuals -- in contract
law -- the test of fairness is the voluntary consent of each party to
the bargain: "the free will which constitutes fair exchanges," as Sen.
John Taylor wrote in 1822. When politicians speak of unfair trade, they
do not mean that buyers and sellers did not voluntarily agree, but that
U.S. government officials disapprove of the bargains American citizens
chose to make. Fair trade, as the term is now used, usually means
government intervention to direct, control, or restrict trade. Fair
trade means government officials deciding what Americans should be
allowed to buy, and what prices they should be forced to pay. Fair trade
is paternalism applied to international commerce. Fair trade means
subjugating the economic interests of private citizens to the moral and
political values of government policymakers.
    Fair trade often consists of some politician or bureaucrat picking a
number out of thin air and imposing it on foreign businesses and
American consumers. Fair trade means that Jamaica is allowed to sell the
U.S. only 970 gallons of ice cream a year, that Mexico is allowed to
sell Americans only 35,292 bras a year, that Poland is allowed to ship
us only 350 tons of alloy tool steel, that Haiti is allowed to sell the
US only 8,030 tons of sugar. Fair trade means permitting each American
citizen to consume the equivalent of only one teaspoon of foreign ice
cream per year, two foreign peanuts per year, and one pound of imported
cheese per year. Fair trade means the U.S. government imposing import
quotas on tampons, typing ribbons, tents, twine, table linen, tap
estries, and ties. Fair trade means that the U.S. Congress can dictate
over 8,000 different taxes on imports, with tariffs as high as 458%.
    Fair trade is generating a new economic scholasticism. Thirteenth
century theologians debated the doctrine of the "just price." Today,
U.S. Commerce Department employees spend their lives ensnaring foreign
companies in quibbles over what is a used forklift, how a company
disposed of wilted flowers, and how to account for the costs of storing
frozen raspberries. The Commerce Department recently penalized a
Japanese company for selling typewriters in the U.S. for a fraction of a
penny less than in Japan. A federal judge criticized American TV
manufacturers for using American trade law to conduct an "economic war"
against their Japanese competitors.
    American trade negotiators have exerted far more effort to close the
U.S. market than to open foreign markets. Since 1980, the U.S.
government has negotiated over 170 bilateral trade agreements to
restrict exports to the United States. If a Third World nation's exports
of a clothing item equal 1 percent or more of U.S. production, the U.S.
government almost automatically restricts that nation's exports. U.S.
trade law has turned incompetence into an entitlement, as any lagging
American company has a right to seek relief from foreign competition.
Foreign nations are increasingly denounced as unfair unless they provide
"affirmative action" programs to force foreign businesses to buy more
American products.
    Webster's New World Dictionary defines "fair" as "just and honest;
impartial; unprejudiced." Yet, most of the foreign trade practices
deemed to be unfair are not considered unfair if done by the U.S.
government or by an American company. U.S. government officials loudly
denounce Japan's beef import quota, though the U.S. also imposes import
quotas on Australian and Argentine beef. The U.S. levied an import
surtax on Thai rice in 1986 because of a small Thai government rice
subsidy -- though the U.S. government was simultaneously providing a
subsidy over a hundred times larger to American rice growers. American
trade law requires foreign companies to earn a significantly higher
profit than American companies -- or else the foreign companies are
penalized as if they were selling at a loss. In federal unfair trade
investigations, foreign companies are automatically assumed to be lying
and American companies are automatically assumed to be telling the
truth. The Commerce Department has used information provided by American
firms to punish foreign competitors even when it knows that the
allegations from the American firms are incorrect or false.
    Fair trade consists largely of the U.S. government devising new ways
to protect American consumers against the scourge of low prices. The
U.S. government does not penalize foreign companies for charging high
prices -- only for charging low prices. Imported clothing that is priced
lower than U.S. clothing is automatically assumed to threaten to disrupt
the U.S. market. Fair trade aims not to safeguard competition, but to
enrich American competitors. The most common foreign "unfair trade
practice" is producing a better product at a lower price. In a nation
with hundreds of federal, state, and local consumer protection agencies,
consumers are explicitly denied a role in most trade proceedings of the
U.S. International Trade Commission and Commerce Department.
    Federal trade policy is increasingly sacrificing some industries to
other industries. American manufacturers have been forced to beg
Commerce Department officials for each ton of specialty steel they are
allowed to import. The number of American manufacturing jobs destroyed
since 1980 by sugar import quotas exceeds the total number of sugar
farmers in the U.S.
    American politicians are profiteering on allegations of foreign
unfairness. For American trade policy, need is the basis of right, and
political campaign contributions are the measure of need. Congressmen's
solution to the problem of unfair foreigners is almost always to
increase their own power over what Americans are allowed to buy. Every
restriction on foreign competition means an increase in political
control over the American consumer. And to control what a person is
allowed to buy is indirectly to control how a person lives.
    Though complaints about unfair trade are at a historic high,
American protectionists have always found some moral pretext to denounce
imports. In the 1820s, protectionists proclaimed that trade between
England and America could not be fair because England was advanced and
America was comparatively backward. In the 1870s, protectionists
announced that trade between America and Latin America could not be fair
because America was comparatively rich while Latin American countries
were poor. In the 1880s, protectionists warned that trade could not be
fair if the interest rate among the trading nations differed by more
than 2 percent. In 1922, Congress effectively defined "unfair
competition" as any foreign cost of production advantage that existed
for any reason on any product.
    In practice, fair trade means protectionism. Yet, every trade
barrier undermines the productivity of capital and labor throughout the
economy. A 1979 Treasury Department study estimated that trade barriers
routinely cost American consumers eight to ten times as much as they
benefit American producers. A 1984 Federal Trade Commission study
estimated that tariffs cost the American economy $81.00 for every $1.00
of adjustment costs saved. Restrictions on clothing and textile imports
cost consumers $1.00 for each 1 cent of increased earnings of American
textile and clothing workers. According to the Institute for
International Economics, trade barriers are costing American consumers
$80 billion a year -- equal to over $1,200 per family."
    CONCLUSION
    The myth of fair trade is that politicians and bureaucrats are
fairer than markets -- that government coercion and restriction can
create a fairer result than voluntary agreement -- and that prosperity
is best achieved by arbitrary political manipulation, rather than
allowing each individual and company to pursue their own interest.
Government cannot make trade more fair by making it less free.
    Our great-grandchildren may look back at the trade wars of the
twentieth century with the same contempt that many people today look at
the religious wars of the seventeenth century -- as a senseless conflict
over issues that grown men should not fight about. Every voluntary trade
transaction is mutually beneficial, otherwise the parties would not
agree to trade. Most trade wars consist of politicians turning a
squabble over the division of benefits into a schism that makes all the
nations involved losers.
    Many people consider the idea of fair trade in the abstract and
judge trade policy simply by the question of whether fairness in itself
is a good or bad thing. We need to understand the contrast between the
ideals and the realities of fair trade. Fair trade can only be as fair
as the trade laws and the restrictions that governments proclaim in the
name of fairness. The best way to understand fair trade is to examine
how our trade laws, trade agreements, and trade restrictions actually
operate.
    We will examine the U.S. tariff code, import quotas, how the dumping
law operates, the U.S. government's judgments on foreign subsidies, the
U.S. International Trade Commission's role in unfair trade
investigations, the failure of trade retaliation, the nature of
political control of trade, and the moral essence of trade restraints.
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to