I wrote:
>>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.
Rakesh writes:
>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.
It's part of my personality that I really like to learn new stuff, to
figure out old problems, etc. It's even pleasant sometimes to find that
I've been wrong on some issue, if it involves a greater understanding. A
lot of my pen-l postings (and there are a lot of them!) are my efforts to
figure things out. (Interestingly, I find that my perspective (which
eschews quotes from Marx and dogmatism) steadily trends toward Marx's
perspective.)
>>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.
from the viewpoint of the US versus Mexico, it does. But not from the
perspective of the US vs. Europe. This is elementary customs union theory.
>>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.
yes, but I don't think these undermine the overall trend. You're right that
"free trade" agreements aren't as "free" as advertised, but the general
trend is toward breaking down barriers between countries, especially to
allow capital flows. Trade barriers are one kind of barrier to capital
flows, since a US-owned factory in Mexico wants to export back to the US
and can't do so if there are trade barriers.
<ellipsis>
>>>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?
yes.
>>>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?
If he has to set up a plant there (and likely he's doing so, if he hasn't
already), he would then have the "nationally-oriented business" perspective
for a larger "nation" (US/Canada/Mexico). But larger businesses with
operations all over the world would likely still be able to defeat him to
move toward widening the scope of that "nation."
<ellipsis>
>>farmers have clout. But not enough clout to RAISE tariffs -- which was my
>>original point.
>
>how about to raise subsidies?
they've had some of that power. I haven't kept track, but there's been some
reaction against the "free market" farm reforms, especially in the face of
the high dollar, which has hurt ag exports.
>>>> 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
but does the government there have the money to pay for it?
<ellipsis>
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
