Jim Devine wrote:
>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).
I've been really wanting to read Gregory Vlastos' collections of
essays on Socrates. I read a few essays as un undergrad, and I found
them so beautiful and brilliant.
>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.
yet we hardly recognize that our positions have changed over time,
which so complicates the idea of a person as a substrate, no? It
would seem to me that if the net does succeed in allowing for some
indepth discussion, the rate at which our views change may
accelerate, thereby undermining any sense of personhood which
persists through time. Or with the bombardment of information, we may
find ourselves unable to develop any views, which undermines the
integrity of personhood in another way. But the self is in eclipse,
one way or another.
>
>>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.
does NAFTA count as free trade? I wouldn't count it as such.
>
>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.
like import surge clauses, hidden subsidies, and regional trade
agreements which I view as a trade barrier.
>
>BTW, I wasn't talking about subsidies on exports.
Good to bring it in.
>
>>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.
humor?
>
>>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 mncs don't have their interest in trade
protection. If Milikan has set up a plant in Mexico, why would he
want a multilateral trade act which would give the same advantages to
a non US based competitor in South East Asia?
>
>>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).
You are misusing the word free trade. Regional trade is not free trade.
>>
>>
>
>farmers have clout. But not enough clout to RAISE tariffs -- which
>was my original point.
how about to raise subsidies?
>
>>> 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.
The internal telecom and energy markets are huge
>
>>> 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.
What I was getting at is that mncs often get better terms in regional
and bilateral acts than they would have in a multilateral trading
regime. In his Westview book on trade, Srinivasan cites some evidence
(which is not to say that I agree with Srinivasan on much).
