Bill Burgess wrote: > Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective > regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for > improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that > capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local > control". > > First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if > I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national > regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on > these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; > an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no > 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) > nationalities. I am not sure what the template means. If California passes a law that restricts pesticide use, it can be challenged as a restraint of trade. Sometimes such protective legislation is just proectionism, but often it is not. > > If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like > "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, > because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of > sand, or some such metaphor. I am not saying that our stance on trade should be based on something like > "protection via local control". But you can write off much opposition to capitalism >as tilting at windmills. However, the result can be defeatism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
