Chris, You are right of course. That is what is happening over here these days.
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 9:19 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade > Harry Pollard wrote: > > The New Internationalist is, of course, noted for its left wing > > anti-market stance. I used to subscribe but got tired of its bias. > > Does that automatically make it wrong what they said about Ricardo? > Next thing you'll say is that Pierre Pettigrew also has a leftist bias... > > > > "export-led trade has come to dominate > > the economic agenda". These are the economics of modern nation > > states - apparently the economics you support). They adopt the > > creed of "Export or Die" rather than the free trade position > > which is import and live. > > If you are in a position to print the "world currency" at will (U$), > then of course it's easy to "import and live" -- import all you want, > de facto FOR FREE (paid with self-made paper money). FREE trade, > literally! ;-} > > However, other countries have to actually earn that money first (IF > they want to import), and this usually happens by exporting stuff. > > For the record, I'm not particularly supporting export-led trade, > which is neither necessary nor desirable from a localization/self- > sufficiency position. > > > > A free trader wants to abolish trade restrictions in his country. > > If no other country wants to free its trade, that doesn't matter. > > The free trader will unilaterally free his country's trade and by > > doing so will remove the corporate privileges that go with > > Protectionism. > > If it's like this, then please act to introduce Free Trade in your country > only, and get your gov't to STOP pushing FT down everyone else's throat > (as in establishing FT areas all over N.+S.America and the Middle East, > and bullying Europe, Asia and 3rd world into removing "trade barriers"). > Good luck in doing so, Harry. > > > > Protectionism has one raison d'etre - to protect > > corporate privileges, a policy that I suppose you support (you > > have already admitted you agree with Big Steel shafting the > > American people). > > It seems you overlooked what I wrote about legitimate fees vs. > obscene profits. If Big Steel is "shafting the American people" > by giving obscene sums to shareholders and CEOs, then I don't agree. > However, if American companies buy American steel, produced locally > by paying fair wages, respecting environmental regulations and > avoiding unnecessary long-distance transports, then I agree. > It rather seems _you_ want to "shaft the American people" by > using cheap imports, taking away their jobs. > > Chris > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
