Re: Re: Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
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
Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
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
Re: Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
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).
Re: Re: Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
But the self is in eclipse, one way or another.
Re: Re: Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
Hello Economucks, 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. Doyle Since you brought it up in an off hand way I doubt you have serious thoughts to say about self. But if you do then I have some serious thoughts also. And in that sense you could do me a favor by providing a suitable partner for discussion. thanks, Doyle
