Chris, We have fallen into the trap of word definition. Any word can mean anything you want it to and people often use the same words to mean different things. Then they cannot possibly find agreement.
I've told you what I mean by free trade again and again. It is simply the dropping of tariffs and quotas and antidumping legislation that now stop goods coming into the country. Internally, a free market removes restrictions on the passing of goods and services between people. It is the essence of freedom. It doesn't mean you remove such things as health regulation or the banning of dangerous substances. It doesn't mean the ending of pollution restrictions and suchlike. It also doesn't mean the coercion and force that are present in such things as the trade in prostitution. The free market tends to produce better quality goods at lower prices -- by competition. People who dislike the market lay every problem on it. It seems that every nasty thing that happens across the world is labeled free trade. It's rather like Orwell's "1984" (peace is war). I personally like people, and peoples, coming together and cooperating. The first expression of this is the trading of goods and services which, as Keith has noted, has happened since the dawn of history. There are other considerations. The old free trade dictum said "if goods don't cross the frontiers, armies will". That makes sense to me. Interdependence is an important factor in maintaining the peace. A warning note is sounded when a nation decides to become self-sufficient. The Third World antipathy stirred up by the WTO is not because they are advocating free trade, but because free trade has not been generated. The major contenders in the global market -- Europe and the US -- have maintained their tariff structure and coupled it with enormous subsidies to agriculture and other industry. The Third World has been prevented from earning a living. No wonder they are annoyed. The Third World is not blameless. Governments are riddled with corruption. Money that comes to them from the developed nations doesn't often seem to reach the people it is designed to help. My favorite, as I've said, is the $60 million that Nigeria "lost". They simply have no idea what happened to it. I'm not against government, but I have a jaundiced view of governments as they have developed. This extends to international government organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. I had some hopes for the WTO as its intention, which was to break down barriers, seem good to me. However, as I've mentioned, the big boys won't play and that makes a mockery of any good intentions. The international government organizations seem to follow the "least exertion" principle and adopt a 'one size fits all' program. Instead of analyzing the problem of a particular country, they try to make it conform to their standard plan. The result is sometimes disaster. In their defense, we should note that the IMF is usually not called in until the country is already a basket case -- the result of the ineptitude of their government. What I would like you to do is to stop labeling any disaster a result of free trade. We don't have free trade. We have very unfree trade, for the fingers of government poke into every aspect of our lives. Trade is now distorted and murdered by governments. So, let's talk about the same subject. Either the monumental government interference in our lives, or the freeing of people to do their own thing in harmony and with profit to everybody concerned. Harry ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free Trade About what "free trade" means: I wrote: > The free trade/market is characterized by the lack of (or bypassing > of) regulations (from gov't) and of ethical considerations, and by > treating humans as commodities. All these criteria are met in the > trade described in the forwarded article, so it does have a lot to do > with free trade/market. (Note that it's a trade _with_, not > _by_prostitutes.) Harry replied: > Free trade is simply the breaking down the barriers between people -- > and between peoples. The restrictions that stop people from > cooperating are removed for everybody's benefit. The two definitions above are not incompatible, except for the last part ("for everybody's benefit"), which is in contradiction to the example. There are countless other examples (externalization of costs) where removal of trade restrictions is harmful to many, such as the tunnel fire example which you still didn't care to reply to. Another example is that bans on hazardous substances (e.g. food colorants) must be lifted by countries that previously had these bans, because the FTers (WTO) consider the bans "trade barriers". This is harmful to anyone except a few shareholders of the substances' manufacturers and the pharma industry that benefits of the resulting cancers etc. > Free trade means dropping tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping measures, and > the rest. It allows people freely to exchange their goods and services > for the benefit of all. > It has nothing to do with the coercion of human beings, so your > suggestions are nonsense It has a lot to do with coercion, such as being forced out of business just because polluters and exploiters (wage dumpers) produce cheaper stuff. > Protection is the opposite of free trade. It is the granting of > privileges to certain groups of people, or corporations, or political > cronies. Protection allows them to get rich at the expense of the > consumer, which is everyone of us. Free trade allows polluters and exploiters to get rich at the expense of the planet's inhabitants and workers, which is everyone of us. > I cannot understand your support of privilege, but apparently that is > what you do. If clean air/water/etc. and decent wages are a privilege, then I support privilege. If making $10,000+ profits by selling crappy unsafe cars (SUVs) --instead of $1000 profits with good cars-- is a privilege, then _you_ support privilege, or so you did recently on this list in the SUV thread... Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
