I wrote:
>>The MNCs are mostly for free trade, though they will take advantage of
>>existing trade restrictions, if they can.
Rakesh:
>Jim, how do you know this?
The usual way I know things, from reading, from direct experience, and from
logically or intuitively figuring it out. But strictly speaking, like
everyone else, I don't know for sure. "All I know is that I know nothing"
said Socrates (I believe). Unlike some, I treat all my "knowledge" as
working hypotheses to be tested logically, empirically, methodologically,
and in practice. Thus, what I know changes over time.
>if mncs are pro-free trade, why haven't they razed the whole intricate
>edifice of tariffs, quotas, ridiculously elastic import surge clauses,
>exclusions of competitive goods from duty free acess, stipulations and
>incentives to use US inputs in US bound exports, etc.?
Legislation involves all sorts of compromises and so takes a long time;
it's not like it's some sort of MNC conspiracy where they can get what they
want at each step. In any event, the current trend is toward more free trade.
You'll also note that I said that even though MNCs exploit existing trade
barriers, they are generally against new ones as a group. New ones
inevitably get introduced, though, as a result of the compromises mentioned
above.
BTW, I wasn't talking about subsidies on exports.
>Have you looked at the Africa Free Trade Act which is loaded with
>protectionist clauses?
No, but I knew that. Or perhaps it is only an illusion, something that you
don't really know.
>And if mncs are not responsible for this structure, who is?
Nationally-oriented businesses and labor unions. Politicians seek support
from them, too.
>Not convinced that we don't have an emergent region-based neo mercantilist
>trade syste organized by the mncs. What else are we to make of the attempt
>to create a regional market in the Americas?
The regional market involves both protection (against European and Japanese
sellers) and free-trade (within the union). It reflects political deals
amongst the various groups with power, including the local bourgeois elites
in Latin America.
>> They're not in favor of _expanding_ tariffs and quotas in most cases,
>> since cutting imports often mean higher costs -- and more importantly,
>> can hurt the sale of their own products, which are "imports" from the
>> point of view of the US (or whatever country is imposing the trade
>> restrictions).
>
>That would seem to be the case but is it? Why did the North fight to make
>sure the MFN and agricultural protection would be the last thing relaxed
>by the WTO as late as 2005?
farmers have clout. But not enough clout to RAISE tariffs -- which was my
original point.
>> If the US imposes tariffs on imports from China, then an MNC that
>> invests in Chinese manufacturing to take advantage of the cheap labor
>> their doesn't get as much of a profit.
>
>you assume that the US company is not after the internal Chinese market.
they say they are interested in that market, but I doubt that there's much
of one. The main market is due to a shift from state-provided benefits to
market-purchased ones. But there are clear limits there.
>> Also, being less short-sighted than small business-people, they know
>> about the possibility of retaliation and the fact that tariffs often
>> lead to currency appreciation (which hurts exports).
>
>so perhaps they prefer Zoellick negotiated bilateral and regional deals
>which can better secure their interests than multilateral trade agreements.
I don't understand this point.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
