Re: the free trade/protectionism debate - let's not dumb down
wages, and the only "big ticket" foreign durables in their budget, are foreign-made cars and foreign-made personal computers. (If you actually look at total American personal consumer expenditure, only 12% is actually expenditure on durable goods anyway). American workers produce new cars and trucks worth $377.5 billion, $80 billion of these American-made vehicles are exported, and new cars and trucks worth $133 billion are imported. So the stock of new cars and trucks appearing on the US domestic market is nowadays worth about $390 billion or so. On the other side of the story, only about a fifth of the total annual payroll in the USA of about $1.2 trillion) is paid out to American working-class people producing new tangible goods. Just under a third of those goods are not consumed in the USA, but exported, yet those exported goods represent two-thirds of the total value of all exports as conventionally defined. This is just to say that the "free trade versus protectionism" debate is really irrelevant from the point of view of the American working class, and if any thing, they benefit from free trade. Jurriaan
From creative anti-terrorism to gerrymandering: protectionism in inter-imperialist rivalry
The Guardian commented recently: "Nowhere is the anti-American mood sweeping Europe better exemplified than in trade. The US is at the receiving end of a series of escalating rows that threaten to spiral into a trade war. Arguments about steel, GM foods and subsidies paid to US multinationals are souring relations between the two commercial titans. Trade between them amounts to $2.1 trillion a year. When George W Bush moved to protect the market share of the ailing US steel industry, based in three electoral 'swing' states, by raising tariffs on imports, he attracted worldwide condemnation. The tariffs were last week ruled illegal by the World Trade Organisation. Europe is threatening to retaliate with $2bn worth of sanctions. These could hit innocent yet politically charged industries, such as Florida's orange growers." And today the Guardian reported: "On the eve of Mr Bush's state visit to Britain, Mr Byers, an arch-Blairite, will set out proposals to help Democrats in key swing states if the White House refuses to abandon punitive trade sanctions against the UK. Acting with the tacit approval of Blair supporters, who were enraged when Mr Bush imposed tariffs on imports of British steel to shore up his vote, the former trade and industry secretary will call for sanctions to be imposed on four key marginal states which the president will need to win." http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1086792,00.html Doesn't this reveal very clearly how democracy is a tradeable commodity in capitalist society, and how the democratic system is pressed into the service of commercial advantage ? When Greg Palast published his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" they called him a muckraker. But you can see the muck in the newspaper headlines if you're not too blind. I recall vividly how, as a student at university in New Zealand two decades ago, I had to listen to an academic sociologist pronouncing verities about the "autonomy of the state" and how it was all a crude, mystifying error to depict the capitalist state as "an executive committee of the ruling classes", as Marx had done with a wry rhetorical flourish. I'm having the same response to that argument as I had then - bollocks. Another sociologist more to my liking used to clip the newspapers, a sort of newspaper sociology. But that was in the days before the Internet. Jurriaan
Re: Re: TPA and the new protectionism
- Original Message - From: "michael perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:53 PM Subject: [PEN-L:26165] Re: TPA and the new protectionism > So, the democrats will give it to Georgie. One question. May Nathan knows. Does the Kerry ammendment > mean that anybody (including US corps) can push such suits or that nobody can? If the former, it is a > step backward. > > -- == It simply shifts the burden of proof: "Under the Kerry Amendment, a foreign investor would be required to demonstrate that the policy in question was enacted primarily with discriminatory intent against foreign investors or investmentsThe Kerry Amendment is based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on expropriation in that it would guarantee that future trade agreements improve upon the NAFTA model and restrict such investment protection actions to only those cases where government action causes a physical invasion of property or the denial of all economic or productive use of that property." http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1112 It doesn't knock out the right of corps. to sue National and sub-National governments. I spoke to a fellow trade 'activist' who works very closely with one of our state legislators. The legislator relayed to my friend that her conversations with Maria Cantwell's legislative aides were rebuffed with "we're beyond the Constitution now." Ian
Re: TPA and the new protectionism
So, the democrats will give it to Georgie. One question. May Nathan knows. Does the Kerry ammendment mean that anybody (including US corps) can push such suits or that nobody can? If the former, it is a step backward. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TPA and the new protectionism
[last paragraph...] Senate defeats worker benefit amendments to trade fast-track bill Tue May 21, 4:27 PM ET By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - With the White House waiting impatiently, the Senate voted down amendments Tuesday that would have complicated passage of a major trade bill, including health benefits for retired steelworkers. Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), in the Capitol for lunch with Senate Republicans, stepped in in his capacity as president of the Senate to break a 49-49 tie and defeat another worker benefit amendment, this one by Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, to provide low-interest loans to help trade-displaced workers with their mortgages. Senate supporters looked to a final vote as early as Thursday on the bill, which would give the president authority to negotiate global trade agreements subject to yes-or-no votes but no changes by Congress. Congress has denied this power to the president since 1994. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., a chief sponsor, predicted passage with as many as 70 votes for the final package, which includes new benefits for workers laid off because of foreign competition and low tariffs for four South American countries. First, the Senate must wade through several other amendments seen as possible threats to the delicate compromise reached between supporters of free trade and those intent on helping workers harmed by trade. The final product goes to negotiations with the House, which passed its version in December by one vote. The White House has threatened a veto if the final bill should include one already-approved Senate amendment, which would give Congress the power to exclude from fast-track procedures any language in trade agreements that would weaken U.S. trade protection laws. Supporters of an amendment giving health benefits to steelworkers forced to retire when their plants close due to imports fell just four short of the 60 needed to end a filibuster. The measure, sponsored by Sens. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; and Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., would have given retired steelworkers refundable tax credits to cover 70 percent of health insurance for a year. The bill already provides similar health benefits for other workers who lose their jobs because of trade. "I don't know that there is a more important issue as it relates to the well-being of workers who are vulnerable," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. Sen. Don Nickles (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., characterized such spending programs as ransom for accepting fast-track trading authority. Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, co-sponsor of the package with Baucus, warned: "If we want trade promotion authority to go to the president, we don't upset that very balanced compromise." White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Tuesday the fast-track bill is among several important measures languishing in the Senate. He expressed concern that the Andean nations Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador will lose low tariffs they have enjoyed the past decade if the bill does not move to the president for his signature. The Senate also was to take up a contentious measure to ensure that foreign investors don't have greater legal rights than U.S. citizens. The amendment, introduced by Sen. John Kerry (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., would change a law, part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, that he said has encouraged foreign investors to file lawsuits contesting federal and state environmental and public health laws. Under NAFTA, investors can claim that such laws, when they affect their profit margins, are the same as an expropriation of private property, for which they deserve compensation. The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said foreign investors already have made claims totaling more than $1.8 billion. Kerry's amendment would ensure that trade agreements give Americans the same legal rights as foreign investors and say compensation is not required for laws that merely lower the value of private property. Sen. Phil Gramm (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the Kerry language is opposed strongly by U.S. business groups because it could result in foreign countries reciprocating by reducing protections for U.S. investors. The NAFTA provision is an irritant in this country, he said, but eliminating it "would destroy the protections we have in other countries that are a necessity."
Re: Re: Protectionism US style
> Ulhas Joglekar wrote: > My question was about the nature of this organic relationship in the > contemporary capitalism in concrete terms, as it impacts world's willingness > to accept dollars ? > > Ulhas > In the contemporary capitalism and in concrete terms, the Luxemburgist relationship links the imperialist expansionism (Balkans, Agghanistan, Georgia and soon Irak) with the necessities and the crises of the process of accumulation (accumulation being exogenous in the Luxemburgist conception). As for the willingness to accept dollar, it would be a choice, only if the most of nations could rise up against the empire. Yen has been high in relation to the dollar for a long time, because Japan was by force the kind banker of the winner and in this quality obliged to defend its currency against the dollar. Every time Japanese or European central banks drop million dollars on the Open Market, to defend their currency, they cancel graciously a quantum of American debt, due to the status of dollar as the world account unit of debt. RK
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
This is something that pen-l has discussed a lot in the past, so I'm not going to provide a full-scale reply. But, _of course_ their are limits to U.S. power and I didn't say otherwise. And the fall of the USSR was crucial to boosting the power of the US, so that the dollar is better seated as the world currency than it was in the 1970s or 1980s. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Ulhas Joglekar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:36 PM > To: pen-l > Subject: [PEN-L:26017] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style > > > Devine, James: > > > Ulhas writes:>Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in > dollars? > > I remember De > > Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s.< > > > > because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world > and in the era > > since 1971-73, money based on political-military power has > replaced money > > based on precious metals. > > US is powerful, but there are limits to US power. (e.g. US > has not been able > to capture Bin Laden 8 months after 9/11) US is the most > powerful country > in the world, but this power has grown dramatically after the > disintegration > of fSU. US power wasn't so all pervading in the 70s and 80s. > e.g. India's > trade with the Soviet block (between 15-20% of India's > foreign trade) was > entirely in Indian currency. US political- military power > could do nothing > about it. Can US compel China to hold fx reserves in dollars, > if China was > unwilling? > > Yes, precious metals have been replaced by $. But, if Euro or Yen > were strong enough, the rest of the world would, perhaps, > hold its reserves > or a portion of them, in those currencies? > > Ulhas > > > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Romain Kroes wrote: > Ulhas Joglekar wrote: > How would Luxemburgism explain this phenomenon? > > In this matter, Luxemburgism postulates an organic relationship between > imperialism and capital accumulation process. Current "Globalization" is > verifying it. My question was about the nature of this organic relationship in the contemporary capitalism in concrete terms, as it impacts world's willingness to accept dollars ? Ulhas
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Devine, James: > Ulhas writes:>Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? > I remember De > Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s.< > > because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world and in the era > since 1971-73, money based on political-military power has replaced money > based on precious metals. US is powerful, but there are limits to US power. (e.g. US has not been able to capture Bin Laden 8 months after 9/11) US is the most powerful country in the world, but this power has grown dramatically after the disintegration of fSU. US power wasn't so all pervading in the 70s and 80s. e.g. India's trade with the Soviet block (between 15-20% of India's foreign trade) was entirely in Indian currency. US political- military power could do nothing about it. Can US compel China to hold fx reserves in dollars, if China was unwilling? Yes, precious metals have been replaced by $. But, if Euro or Yen were strong enough, the rest of the world would, perhaps, hold its reserves or a portion of them, in those currencies? Ulhas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: > Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De > Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s. During the second half of 19th century, England, because of her systematically negative balance of trade, had invented the "balance sterling" with wich she paid her debt with her debt. This system was possible and well self-maintained, due to holders of these sharing parts of the debt, who prefered to see their financial capital on the banks of Thames, because England was then the metropolis of the capitalist world system. But that was not irreversible, as sterling was convertible into gold at a fixed parity. Between the two World Wars, the "Gold exchange standard" advised nations not to demand gold in payments, but "balances" in any kind of convertible currency (convertible theoretically into gold). After the second World War, the treaty of Bretton Woods has reduced the previous "Gold exchange standard" to one bench currency: the dollar which took on itself the convertibility of all convertible currencies into gold. So that it was not necessary to demand gold in payment, as the gold of the whole capitalist world system was more secured, sleeping within Fort-Knox. Two reasons for such a belief. First, all convertible currencies were by definition in a relationship of fixed parities. Second, due to European debt toward the USA, the balance of trade of these latter was expected to be positive. In 1958, the currencies of Bretton Woods's system became, as planned, "convertible". But the USA's balance of trade had become negative. Nevertheless, due to Cold War, the allies of the USA, that is the capitalist world system, did not dare to demand gold payments from the metropolis and their nuclear umbrella. Additionally, capitalist individuals and corporations perfered to see their financial capital in Wall-Street. Between 1953 and 1958, the USA balanced their debt by only 18% in gold. De Gaulle obliged Washington to increase this part to 48% between 1958 and 1962. After what it was the relentless crisis of dollar. In 1971, president Nixon unilaterally suspended, then abolished any kind of convertibility for the dollar. What was to be done, when the wold system of trade was based on dollar? The only possibility of escaping such a trap is a consensus between a sufficient huge number of nations, for do not putting themselves into debt in dollars any more. You can see the level of the problem. > US trade balance is negative, but not Japan's. What is the net balance for > the metropolis, Japan and EU included? European balance toward the USA, as Japan's, is positive. But European balance toward the rest of the world, except the USA, is negative. In the capitalist world system, there is a main metropolis and there are secondary ones. > How would Luxemburgism explain this phenomenon? In this matter, Luxemburgism postulates an organic relationship between imperialism and capital accumulation process. Current "Globalization" is verifying it. RK
RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Ulhas writes:>Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s.< because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world and in the era since 1971-73, money based on political-military power has replaced money based on precious metals. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Romain Kroes wrote: > I have already answered this pertinent question. The asymmetry is due to the > status of dollar as the wolrld account unit of debt. So that the USA are the > only ones paying their debt with their debt. Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s. >The very question is : why is > the trade balance of world system's metropolis systematically negative > through history, US trade balance is negative, but not Japan's. What is the net balance for the metropolis, Japan and EU included? >from ancient Athens to the USA, notably through Rome, > 16th-century Europe and Victorian England? and the answer can be found in a > Luxemburgist way. How would Luxemburgism explain this phenomenon? Ulhas
Re: Re: Protectionism US style
I have already answered this pertinent question. The asymmetry is due to the status of dollar as the wolrld account unit of debt. So that the USA are the only ones paying their debt with their debt. The very question is : why is the trade balance of world system's metropolis systematically negative through history, from ancient Athens to the USA, notably through Rome, 16th-century Europe and Victorian England? and the answer can be found in a Luxemburgist way. RK - Original Message - From: "Michael Pollak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:50 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26008] Re: Protectionism US style > > On Mon, 13 May 2002, Michael Perelman wrote: > > > > Theoretically speaking, how does a deteriorating fiscal position lead > > > to a strong dollar? > > > > deficits => high interest rates => strong dollar. > > That makes perfect sense. Except how come for all other countries, > growing deficits lead to weaker currencies? And how come, during the 90s, > surpluses and low interest rates led to a strong dollar? And deficits and > high interest rates led to a weak Euro? Are these not considered enough > anomalous results to make this theory slightly questionable under present > arrangements, where capital accounts are all wide open? > > Michael > >
Re: Protectionism US style
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Michael Perelman wrote: > > Theoretically speaking, how does a deteriorating fiscal position lead > > to a strong dollar? > > deficits => high interest rates => strong dollar. That makes perfect sense. Except how come for all other countries, growing deficits lead to weaker currencies? And how come, during the 90s, surpluses and low interest rates led to a strong dollar? And deficits and high interest rates led to a weak Euro? Are these not considered enough anomalous results to make this theory slightly questionable under present arrangements, where capital accounts are all wide open? Michael
Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Michael Perelman wrote: > deficits => high interest rates => strong dollar. I propose another algorithmic system: 1. USA's trade deficit ) +) ==> strong dollar Dollar as account unit of debt) 2. Hardening elasticity between growth rate and price index ==> inflation tendency ==> Mr Greenspan's constipation I mean strong dollar and high interest rates are independent processes, as far as the USA are concerned. What is true of any other country and currency is not of the USA and dollar, because, due to the status of dollar as the world account unit of debt, the USA are the only economic territory which pays its debt with its debt. World-System order is an asymmetric one. Romain Kroës
Re: Re: Protectionism US style
On Monday, May 13, 2002 at 07:13:16 (-0700) Michael Perelman writes: >deficits => high interest rates => strong dollar. => cheap imports => protectionism => militarism Bill
Re: Re: Protectionism US style
deficits => high interest rates => strong dollar. On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 02:58:37AM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: > > On Thu, 9 May 2002, Joseph Stiglitz was quoted as saying: > > > Many of America's problems are made in USA. America's deteriorating > > fiscal position is leading to a strong dollar, just as the deteriorating > > fiscal position of the US after Reagan's irresponsible tax cut of two > > decades ago did. > > Theoretically speaking, how does a deteriorating fiscal position lead to a > strong dollar? And as a statement of fact, isn't this future progressive > tense -- implying that the dollar will get stronger from here on -- a > little questionable just right now? > > Michael > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Protectionism US style
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Joseph Stiglitz was quoted as saying: > Many of America's problems are made in USA. America's deteriorating > fiscal position is leading to a strong dollar, just as the deteriorating > fiscal position of the US after Reagan's irresponsible tax cut of two > decades ago did. Theoretically speaking, how does a deteriorating fiscal position lead to a strong dollar? And as a statement of fact, isn't this future progressive tense -- implying that the dollar will get stronger from here on -- a little questionable just right now? Michael
Speaking of protectionism
Patent nonsense Companies now demanding intellectual property rights were built up without them George Monbiot Tuesday March 12, 2002 The Guardian The most surprising aspect of the steel war launched by the United States last week is that anyone is surprised. For all the talk of increasing freedom, the only certain and consistent trend in global trade rules over the past 10 years has been the drift towards protectionism. The rich nations have repeatedly promised to phase out agricultural subsidies and to remove the tariffs on textiles imported from the poor world, but those promises have been broken. Instead they have battened down the hatches by granting to the corporations they shelter new laws defending "intellectual property". At the world trade talks in November, the poor nations appeared to win some ground. They would be allowed to continue to import cheap copies of the patented drugs required to fight epidemics. But, though few people spotted it, there was a catch. While nations will be permitted to buy these drugs, by 2005 the countries manufacturing them will be forbidden to sell them, with the result that the rules defending public health won't be worth the paper they're written on. At a meeting last week, the European Union seemed prepared to compromise on this issue, but the US wouldn't budge. New global trade rules have also allowed big corporations to patent crop varieties and, in effect, the genes of plants, animals and human beings. This has grave implications both for food security and the accessibility of medicines. But the corporations argue that this new protectionism is essential to stimulate both innovation and investment. There are many ways in which this claim could be challenged, but I may have just stumbled across a novel and fascinating one. It is contained within the histories of the very companies which now insist that intellectual property rights are the pre-requisites of development. In Industrialisation without National Patents, published in 1971, the economic historian Eric Schiff tells the story of the emergence of some of Europe's biggest corporations. They came into being in Switzerland and the Netherlands during the period (1850-1907 in Switzerland; 1869-1912 in the Netherlands) in which neither country recognised patents. Some of them appear to owe their very existence to this exemption. In the Netherlands the old patent laws were clumsy and poorly drafted. The government decided they were unreformable, and simply scrapped them. In Switzerland, the confederation developed without them, and decided to keep it that way. Contrary to all current predictions of what the impact of such abrogations would be, in both nations they appear to have contributed to massive economic growth and innovation. Switzerland was a poor country without many natural resources, whose economy was largely reliant on farming. But in 1859 a small company based in Basel "borrowed" the aniline dying process which had been developed and patented in Britain two years before. The company, later called Ciba, soon became a massive industrial enterprise, swiftly outstripping competing firms in Britain. In 1995, Ciba merged with another Swiss firm, Sandoz, to form the conglomerate Novartis. Novartis was one of the companies which successfully lobbied for the European convention allowing companies to patent genes. It was also one of the firms which spent three years fighting the South African government's attempt to buy cheap copies of its patented drugs, in order to treat patients infected with HIV. Now, having merged with Zeneca to form an even bigger company, Syngenta, it is extending its intellectual property rights still further by developing seeds which don't reproduce. But Switzerland's economic growth during this period did not rely solely upon purloining other nations' patented processes. Industrial innovation flourished, especially in food technology. No country, Schiff notes, has ever contributed "as many basic inventions in this field as did Switzerland during her patentless period". In 1875, for example, Daniel Peter invented milk chocolate. In 1879, Rudolf Lindt developed chocolat fondant. In 1886, Julius Maggi invented powdered soup. A few years later he developed stock cubes. All these men founded companies which still bear their names today. But the biggest food firm to emerge in this period took root in 1865, when Henri Nestle developed a cereal for children. In 1998, the International Chamber of Commerce lobbied the World Trade Organisation in support of corporate rights over plants, animals and genes. It argued that "the protection of intellectual property" is "essential for economic growth". Its chairman at the time was Helmut Maucher, who was also the chief executive of Nestle, the company which arose and conquered the world without any intellect
protectionism
Jim D wrote: It's interesting that a foreign-trade&finance expert like PK never mentions that a lot of the steel industry's problems recently have been due to the steep appreciation of the dollar (relative to its biggest trading partners) since 1995. __ Yet this raises the question: if the high dollar has cost jobs, should protectionism be adopted? I wonder whether Jim agrees with Krugman's criticism of protectionism? Since Jim is ostensibly ignoring me, perhaps someone else can put the question to Jim so that we can be clear about what he agrees and disagrees with in the columns of his former college roommate? Rakesh
Re: protectionism
- Original Message - From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:47 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23830] protectionism > Jim D wrote: > > It's interesting that a foreign-trade&finance expert like PK never mentions > that a lot of the steel industry's problems recently have been due to the > steep appreciation of the dollar (relative to its biggest trading partners) > since 1995. > __ > Yet this raises the question: if the high dollar has cost jobs, > should protectionism be adopted? I wonder whether Jim agrees with > Krugman's criticism of protectionism? Ah, 'reverse' the necker cube, Rakesh; the high dollar, as it partially contributes to the maintenance of the reserve army of the unemployed, is an unwitting kind of protectionism for capitalIt is also a sticking point among the various factions of capital as it disciplines exporters who are also exposed to 'foreign' competition to work even harder to lower unit labor costs and unit capital costs Ian
protectionism
Jim D wrote: It's interesting that a foreign-trade&finance expert like PK never mentions that a lot of the steel industry's problems recently have been due to the steep appreciation of the dollar (relative to its biggest trading partners) since 1995. __ Yet this raises the question: if the high dollar has cost jobs, should protectionism be adopted? I wonder whether Jim agrees with Krugman's criticism of protectionism? As Eisner pointed out, protectionism on behalf of US based textiles or steel may limit the supply of dollars abroad and raise the value of the dollar, which could say tip the balance in favor of Airbus over Boeing. The high dollar may be a problem but I think Krugman is correct that tariffs and indiscriminate usage of import surge and anti dumping clauses are not a good response to it. I also think Krugman is correct that trade nationalism, strong among the left, put that rather unlovely dude in office, but then Doug and Max already know I warned long ago that not vociferously and analytically critiquing the post Seattle trade nationalism was a huge political mistake. It's too bad leftists don't fight trade nationalism--are we to defend our capitalists against others as they all jostle in deciding whose excess capacity is to be eliminated? I have recalled a book by Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism; I think it will make for very good reading. rb
knowledge protectionism
All you profs. out there worried about having your lecture notes commodified to no end... Who owns learning? : questions of autonomy, choice, and control / edited by Curt Dudley-Marling and Dennis Searle Pub info Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann, c1995 Ian
Re: protectionism
Michael Perelman wrote, >If the US tried to use protectionism as a form for maintaining aggregate >demand, wouldn't that throw fuel on the Argentinian/Turkish crisis? >Doesn't the rest of the world economy depend on the US as the consumer of >last resort? Would it be a bull in China shop? Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
protectionism
It seems very interesting what is going on in this discussion, and I am afraid that I can hardly follow. Anyway, let me clarifiy small points. A colleague wrote: > >Except the paper says "_In the very last resort_, the United States should >not forget that nondiscriminatory measures to control imports . . . are >permitted under Article 12 of the successor to GATT." (Whether you believe >such measures can be non-discriminatory is another matter.) the meaning of nondiscriminatory here is simply that the aim is to protect the general level of employment 'in house', not to protect one or a couple of industries and unprotect the others. In this sense, tariffs seem to be the appropriate instrument, rather than quotas. Implicitly, it cannot be done without 'coordination' between trading partners, otherwise it lead to retaliation... Now, again, Wynne's proposal is a much more elaborated one than what we suggested in the paper. It requires a set of coordinated measures in which import restrictions go hand in hand with fiscal relaxation >From there onwards, yes, I could agree that 'coordination between countries' is not an even game: anybody can imagine what the 'coordination between Haiti and the US' could be, for example. The authors >argue that the best case scenario is that the U.S.' private financial >balance wouldn't revert, and growth would continue at about 3%, in which >case, Indonesian textile workers are about where they are now. As others >have pointed out, the authors' emphasis here and elsewhere is on fiscal and >tax policy needed to sustain growth. They also suggest that other countries >could engage in some coordinated reflation. > Yes, this is actually our main point in terms of possible strategic solutions. You are perfectly right. The problem seems to be that these are not very 'popular' solutions nowadays. A side remark, the 3% growth rate is, in our view, totally unrealistic. Out of the question. In the paper is presented as a baseline because that is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast. regards, Alex
Re: Re: protectionism
> > I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor >> policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility >> that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the >> other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and >> this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will >> probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. > >Except the paper says "_In the very last resort_, the United States should >not forget that nondiscriminatory measures to control imports . . . are >permitted under Article 12 of the successor to GATT." (Whether you believe >such measures can be non-discriminatory is another matter.) The authors >argue that the best case scenario is that the U.S.' private financial >balance wouldn't revert, and growth would continue at about 3%, in which >case, Indonesian textile workers are about where they are now. As others >have pointed out, the authors' emphasis here and elsewhere is on fiscal and >tax policy needed to sustain growth. They also suggest that other countries >could engage in some coordinated reflation, were there but world enough and >institutions. > >Would like the Nelson, Ostry, and Eisner refs. The first two wrote a book titled something like techno nationalism; Eisner wrote The Great Deficit Scares. Both books for the non economist--that's me. RB
Re: protectionism
> I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor > policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility > that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the > other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and > this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will > probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. Except the paper says "_In the very last resort_, the United States should not forget that nondiscriminatory measures to control imports . . . are permitted under Article 12 of the successor to GATT." (Whether you believe such measures can be non-discriminatory is another matter.) The authors argue that the best case scenario is that the U.S.' private financial balance wouldn't revert, and growth would continue at about 3%, in which case, Indonesian textile workers are about where they are now. As others have pointed out, the authors' emphasis here and elsewhere is on fiscal and tax policy needed to sustain growth. They also suggest that other countries could engage in some coordinated reflation, were there but world enough and institutions. Would like the Nelson, Ostry, and Eisner refs. Christian
protectionism
If the US tried to use protectionism as a form for maintaining aggregate demand, wouldn't that throw fuel on the Argentinian/Turkish crisis? Doesn't the rest of the world economy depend on the US as the consumer of last resort? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: protectionism
I am glad to see Rakesh returning to pen-l, but please, Rakesh, try to avoid attacking others on the list, even obliquely. Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > 1. Alex's concerns about dynamic increasing returns speak mostly to > North-North trade--as Richard Nelson and Sylvia Ostry have noted--not > to the North-South trade which has motivated anti-globalization, > protectionist sentiment. So the theoretical concerns which he raises > seem out of place in the present debates. > > 2. Not convinced that the CAD is so foreboding. Flow of funds data do > not allow us to know how much of the foreign debt is owned by > Americans and very special friends (e.g., the Saudis) operating out > of foreign hedge funds. > > 3. As for protectionism itself, I am concerned about the lack of > consideration of obvious counter-productive effects. There seems to > be so little recognition of this by the self styled populists, so I > submit that they are in the thrall of mythical nationalist thought > which gains power as class antagonisms threaten to develop in times > of uncertainty. It wouldn't be the first time that the reaction to > the highly formalist and abstract analysis of bourgeois economics had > led to an embrace of the myths of nation and neo mercantalism. > > I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor > policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility > that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the > other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and > this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will > probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. That > is, as the free trade Keynesian Bob Eisner warned (but I guess he has > already been forgotten), there could be one aircraft job loss in > Seattle (to Airbus) for every textile job protected in South Carolina. > > Rakesh > > As a side note: on his list from which I have been banned, Doug H > downloaded a NYT article on the labor situation in Cambodia. Though > of course I couldn't reply, he suggested to his list that my thinking > was not complicated enough, but he did not notice--though I have > pointed this out to to him several times--that the US has reserved > the unilateral right to determine whether labor conditions are good > enough in Cambodia to allow it a quota increase, and he did not > notice that the NYT article did not say a word about what the > consequences of last year's quota denial had been on the Cambodian > workers who had lost their jobs presumably to return to the mine > infested country-side. But I suppose keeping on nationalist > chauvinist blinders is considered to be complicated analysis. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
protectionism
1. Alex's concerns about dynamic increasing returns speak mostly to North-North trade--as Richard Nelson and Sylvia Ostry have noted--not to the North-South trade which has motivated anti-globalization, protectionist sentiment. So the theoretical concerns which he raises seem out of place in the present debates. 2. Not convinced that the CAD is so foreboding. Flow of funds data do not allow us to know how much of the foreign debt is owned by Americans and very special friends (e.g., the Saudis) operating out of foreign hedge funds. 3. As for protectionism itself, I am concerned about the lack of consideration of obvious counter-productive effects. There seems to be so little recognition of this by the self styled populists, so I submit that they are in the thrall of mythical nationalist thought which gains power as class antagonisms threaten to develop in times of uncertainty. It wouldn't be the first time that the reaction to the highly formalist and abstract analysis of bourgeois economics had led to an embrace of the myths of nation and neo mercantalism. I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. That is, as the free trade Keynesian Bob Eisner warned (but I guess he has already been forgotten), there could be one aircraft job loss in Seattle (to Airbus) for every textile job protected in South Carolina. Rakesh As a side note: on his list from which I have been banned, Doug H downloaded a NYT article on the labor situation in Cambodia. Though of course I couldn't reply, he suggested to his list that my thinking was not complicated enough, but he did not notice--though I have pointed this out to to him several times--that the US has reserved the unilateral right to determine whether labor conditions are good enough in Cambodia to allow it a quota increase, and he did not notice that the NYT article did not say a word about what the consequences of last year's quota denial had been on the Cambodian workers who had lost their jobs presumably to return to the mine infested country-side. But I suppose keeping on nationalist chauvinist blinders is considered to be complicated analysis.
Re: Political Economy of Protectionism (fwd)
This is not about regulation theory. RT is about capitalist governance (thus far) and thus specifically about capitalist institutions, their evolution, their practicality, and their design for a better future. Industrial policy is only a small aspect of it. Naturally there are all sorts of people using RT, marxists and non-marxists, policy-makers and academics. Aside from the macroeconomic takes by RT, such as Aglietta, Boyer, and the like, there are others who are more micro oriented, especially examining the sectoral dynamics, such as the auto, engineering, health etc. Best, Pyke, Penrose, Hollingsworth, Streeck come to mind. Cheers, Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462 Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5612 University of WashingtonBox Number: 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA xxx On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I don't know if this helps to requested info on regulation theory.. > > Mine > > >Although I have not read it, the paper abstracted below seems very > >interesting. I plan to obtain it soon. Some of you may also find it > >interesting. > > >Cheers, > > >McKeever > > >"The Political Economy of Protectionism and Industrial Policy" > > BY: HADI SALEHI ESFAHANI > University of Illinois >MUNIR MAHMUD > Pennsylvania State University > Dept. of Economics > > Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection: >http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=150730 > > Paper ID: Working Paper No. 98-0111 > Date: June 1998 > > Contact: HADI SALEHI ESFAHANI >Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Postal: University of Illinois >210DKH >1206 South Sixth Street >Urbana, IL 61801 USA >Phone: (217)333-2681 > Fax: (217)333-1398 > Co-Auth: MUNIR MAHMUD >Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Postal: Pennsylvania State University >Dept. of Economics >609 Kern Building >University Park, PA 16802-3306 USA > > Paper Requests: > Contact Illinois Research and Reference Center, 128 Library, > 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana IL 61801 USA. Fax:(217)244-0398; > Phone:(217)333-1958. Basic fee is $10. > http://www.library.uiuc.edu/library/irrc/default.htm > > ABSTRACT: > This paper develops a model of trade and industrial policy where > the politicians in charge of the government can direct the rents > generated by their policies toward their political or economic > objectives through different channels: lobbying, taxation, > regulation, and tariff and quota allocation. Different > mechanisms are distinguished by their point of rent extraction > and differences in resource waste for each dollar of transfer. > In conjunction with industrial policy, specific asset formation > is also endogenized. We show that many characteristics of the > model's equilibria transcend specific channels of rent > extraction that prevail. The parameters that represent the > effectiveness of rent transfer through various channels play a > mediating role. The results show that the relationships between > these parameters and policy outcomes may be different from those > based on single-channel models. We show that under reasonable > conditions, a variety of parameter changes induce a positive > relationship between the restrictiveness of policies toward > domestic and foreign competition. This helps explain a number of > important empirical regularities such as the positive > association of protection with import penetration and > output-capital ratio. The model also offers a guide for > empirical research on the role of lobbying and other rent > extraction mechanisms in policy-making. > > > JEL Classification: F13, L52 > _ > >
Political Economy of Protectionism (fwd)
I don't know if this helps to requested info on regulation theory.. Mine >Although I have not read it, the paper abstracted below seems very >interesting. I plan to obtain it soon. Some of you may also find it >interesting. >Cheers, >McKeever >"The Political Economy of Protectionism and Industrial Policy" BY: HADI SALEHI ESFAHANI University of Illinois MUNIR MAHMUD Pennsylvania State University Dept. of Economics Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=150730 Paper ID: Working Paper No. 98-0111 Date: June 1998 Contact: HADI SALEHI ESFAHANI Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: University of Illinois 210DKH 1206 South Sixth Street Urbana, IL 61801 USA Phone: (217)333-2681 Fax: (217)333-1398 Co-Auth: MUNIR MAHMUD Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Pennsylvania State University Dept. of Economics 609 Kern Building University Park, PA 16802-3306 USA Paper Requests: Contact Illinois Research and Reference Center, 128 Library, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana IL 61801 USA. Fax:(217)244-0398; Phone:(217)333-1958. Basic fee is $10. http://www.library.uiuc.edu/library/irrc/default.htm ABSTRACT: This paper develops a model of trade and industrial policy where the politicians in charge of the government can direct the rents generated by their policies toward their political or economic objectives through different channels: lobbying, taxation, regulation, and tariff and quota allocation. Different mechanisms are distinguished by their point of rent extraction and differences in resource waste for each dollar of transfer. In conjunction with industrial policy, specific asset formation is also endogenized. We show that many characteristics of the model's equilibria transcend specific channels of rent extraction that prevail. The parameters that represent the effectiveness of rent transfer through various channels play a mediating role. The results show that the relationships between these parameters and policy outcomes may be different from those based on single-channel models. We show that under reasonable conditions, a variety of parameter changes induce a positive relationship between the restrictiveness of policies toward domestic and foreign competition. This helps explain a number of important empirical regularities such as the positive association of protection with import penetration and output-capital ratio. The model also offers a guide for empirical research on the role of lobbying and other rent extraction mechanisms in policy-making. JEL Classification: F13, L52 _
Re: Protectionism, free trade and socialism
At 10:10 AM 3/7/00 -0500, you wrote: >[This op-ed piece is a demagogic appeal on behalf of Africans from the >neoliberal cheerleader Thomas Friedman. In targeting the protectionist >campaign of unions like UNITE, Friedman offers the free flow of capital as >an alternative. This points to the rather narrow ideological framework of >much of the post-WTO protest debate. Clearly there is an alternative to >protectionism and neoliberal free trade, namely socialism. hopefully socialism isn't the only alternative, since it's damn hard to create overnight. The alternative in the meantime is solidarity, which helps create the basis for socialism. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Protectionism, free trade and socialism
> From: "Mathew Forstater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Has anyone heard that Angola and South Africa were nominating Stanley > Fischer to head the IMF??? (I hadn't known that he was born in "Northern > Rhodesia.") Ouch. Hey, it's deeply embarrassing. All we can say from Jo'burg today is that it looks like the yanks (Brother Summers to be precise) yanked those strings. So, for being a good puppet, SA's finance minister (Trevor Manuel, formerly a self-described socialist from the Cape Town ghettoes) gets to chair the April 16 IMF/World Bank Board of Governors meetings. Bob N., is that next creampie ready to fly?
Re: Protectionism, free trade and socialism
Has anyone heard that Angola and South Africa were nominating Stanley Fischer to head the IMF??? (I hadn't known that he was born in "Northern Rhodesia.") Ouch. -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 9:12 AM Subject: [PEN-L:16938] Protectionism, free trade and socialism >[This op-ed piece is a demagogic appeal on behalf of Africans from the >neoliberal cheerleader Thomas Friedman. In targeting the protectionist >campaign of unions like UNITE, Friedman offers the free flow of capital as >an alternative. This points to the rather narrow ideological framework of >much of the post-WTO protest debate. Clearly there is an alternative to >protectionism and neoliberal free trade, namely socialism. In the aftermath >of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the discussion hopefully will evolve >from one of "why socialism does not work" to one of "why capitalism does >not work". For a useful discussion of that, check the latest MR which has >an article by Leo Panitch and Sam Gidin on what they describe as a need to >reinvoke the utopian spirit of Marxism. While I question the value of >"utopia", I do think they make an important point. Socialism must not >proceed on the basis of playing by the rules of the capitalist system. For >example, Panitch and Gindin point out that a recent issue of New Left >Review includes an article by Jamie Galbraith that states that the "welfare >state" is the only game in town. If NLR prints this sort of accomodationist >junk, what is the point of putting out a Marxist journal to begin with?] > > >NY Times, March 7, 2000 > >FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN > >Don't Punish Africa > >There is a travesty brewing in Congress that, if allowed to continue, will >be a source of shame for all Americans. It will certainly be an ugly stain >on the U.S. labor movement, particularly the apparel union and the >A.F.L.-C.I.O. -- a stain that will highlight all the unions' phony-baloney >assertions in Seattle that they just want to improve worker rights around >the world and help the poor. > >This controversy has to do with a stalled trade bill called The African >Growth and Opportunity Act. And the bottom line is this: At a time when >Africa is ravaged by AIDS, at a time when 290 million Africans -- more than >the entire population of the U.S. -- are living on a dollar a day, the main >U.S. textile union, UNITE!; the main textile manufacturers' lobby, ATMI; >and the lawmakers who bow to both of them are blocking a bill that would >allow Africans to export clothing to America duty free -- instead of with >the current 17 percent import tax. > >Why the opposition? Because Africa might increase its share of U.S. textile >and apparel imports from its current level of 0.8 percent! Shame on the >people blocking this bill. Shame on them. > >Full article at: >http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/030700frie.html > > >Louis Proyect > >(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
RE: Protectionism, free trade and socialism
Before getting into a discussion over the Marxist utopia, I'd like to comment a moment on Tom Friedman's utterly demagogic piece in the NYT. Progressives are opposing the misnamed "African Growth and Opportunity Act" because it imposes structural adjustment-like conditions on African countries that want to take advantage of the trade privileges. Instead, they support the "HOPE for Africa Act", which is superior in every respect (although it falls short of utopia). What is truly ugly is that Friedman must know this. He is aware that a wide array of groups, include UNITE, supports a cooperative, nonneoliberal approach to Africa *that encompasses trade expansion*, but he suppresses this in his column in order to make the false claim that US unions are knee-jerk protectionists and are out to "punish Africa". This man has no scruples. He is not merely politically in error, he is personally odious. Mike Barnacle and the other columnists who were canned for partially concocting their stories were models of journalistic rectitude compared to this guy. If the Times had any standards, this would be his last column. Peter -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/7/00 7:10 AM Subject: [PEN-L:16938] Protectionism, free trade and socialism [This op-ed piece is a demagogic appeal on behalf of Africans from the neoliberal cheerleader Thomas Friedman. In targeting the protectionist campaign of unions like UNITE, Friedman offers the free flow of capital as an alternative. This points to the rather narrow ideological framework of much of the post-WTO protest debate. Clearly there is an alternative to protectionism and neoliberal free trade, namely socialism. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the discussion hopefully will evolve from one of "why socialism does not work" to one of "why capitalism does not work". For a useful discussion of that, check the latest MR which has an article by Leo Panitch and Sam Gidin on what they describe as a need to reinvoke the utopian spirit of Marxism. While I question the value of "utopia", I do think they make an important point. Socialism must not proceed on the basis of playing by the rules of the capitalist system. For example, Panitch and Gindin point out that a recent issue of New Left Review includes an article by Jamie Galbraith that states that the "welfare state" is the only game in town. If NLR prints this sort of accomodationist junk, what is the point of putting out a Marxist journal to begin with?] NY Times, March 7, 2000 FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Don't Punish Africa There is a travesty brewing in Congress that, if allowed to continue, will be a source of shame for all Americans. It will certainly be an ugly stain on the U.S. labor movement, particularly the apparel union and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. -- a stain that will highlight all the unions' phony-baloney assertions in Seattle that they just want to improve worker rights around the world and help the poor. This controversy has to do with a stalled trade bill called The African Growth and Opportunity Act. And the bottom line is this: At a time when Africa is ravaged by AIDS, at a time when 290 million Africans -- more than the entire population of the U.S. -- are living on a dollar a day, the main U.S. textile union, UNITE!; the main textile manufacturers' lobby, ATMI; and the lawmakers who bow to both of them are blocking a bill that would allow Africans to export clothing to America duty free -- instead of with the current 17 percent import tax. Why the opposition? Because Africa might increase its share of U.S. textile and apparel imports from its current level of 0.8 percent! Shame on the people blocking this bill. Shame on them. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/030700frie.html Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Protectionism, free trade and socialism
[This op-ed piece is a demagogic appeal on behalf of Africans from the neoliberal cheerleader Thomas Friedman. In targeting the protectionist campaign of unions like UNITE, Friedman offers the free flow of capital as an alternative. This points to the rather narrow ideological framework of much of the post-WTO protest debate. Clearly there is an alternative to protectionism and neoliberal free trade, namely socialism. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the discussion hopefully will evolve from one of "why socialism does not work" to one of "why capitalism does not work". For a useful discussion of that, check the latest MR which has an article by Leo Panitch and Sam Gidin on what they describe as a need to reinvoke the utopian spirit of Marxism. While I question the value of "utopia", I do think they make an important point. Socialism must not proceed on the basis of playing by the rules of the capitalist system. For example, Panitch and Gindin point out that a recent issue of New Left Review includes an article by Jamie Galbraith that states that the "welfare state" is the only game in town. If NLR prints this sort of accomodationist junk, what is the point of putting out a Marxist journal to begin with?] NY Times, March 7, 2000 FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Don't Punish Africa There is a travesty brewing in Congress that, if allowed to continue, will be a source of shame for all Americans. It will certainly be an ugly stain on the U.S. labor movement, particularly the apparel union and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. -- a stain that will highlight all the unions' phony-baloney assertions in Seattle that they just want to improve worker rights around the world and help the poor. This controversy has to do with a stalled trade bill called The African Growth and Opportunity Act. And the bottom line is this: At a time when Africa is ravaged by AIDS, at a time when 290 million Africans -- more than the entire population of the U.S. -- are living on a dollar a day, the main U.S. textile union, UNITE!; the main textile manufacturers' lobby, ATMI; and the lawmakers who bow to both of them are blocking a bill that would allow Africans to export clothing to America duty free -- instead of with the current 17 percent import tax. Why the opposition? Because Africa might increase its share of U.S. textile and apparel imports from its current level of 0.8 percent! Shame on the people blocking this bill. Shame on them. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/030700frie.html Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
[PEN-L:5434] Greenspan Decries Rising Protectionism; WTO Data HandbookAvailable
IN THIS MESSAGE: Greenspan Decries Rising Protectionism; WTO Data Handbook Available Greenspan Lashes Out Against Protectionism 02:51 p.m Apr 16, 1999 Eastern By Marcus Kabel DALLAS (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Friday lashed out against a rising tide of protectionism in the United States and criticized the Clinton administration's trade policy for being too narrow-minded and confrontational. ``The United States has been in the forefront of the postwar opening up of international markets, much to our, and the rest of the world's, benefit,'' he said. ``It would be a great tragedy were that process reversed.'' Greenspan, a fervent free-market advocate, said the massive rise in world competition that growing international trade had caused over the past half century had resulted in ``markedly higher standards of living'' for participating countries -- particularly the United States. The central banker harshly criticized the administration's trade policies for being too adversarial, based on the belief that trade is a zero-sum game in which a gain by one player is always to the detriment of the other. ``If trade barriers are lowered by both parties, each clearly benefits. But if one lowers barriers and the other does not, the country that lowered barriers unilaterally would still be better off having done so,'' he said. Greenspan also cautioned against promoting trade policies solely in terms of how many jobs they might help to create, as the administration has done in trying to drum up support for the North American Free Trade Association between the United States, Canada and Mexico that came into effect in 1994. ``We try to promote free trade on the mistaken ground that it will create jobs. The reason should be that it enhances standards of living through the effects of competition on productivity,'' he said. The Clinton administration sold NAFTA over the objections of labor unions as a job-creating trade deal, arguing it would create more high-wage jobs in the United States. Most economist would call NAFTA a success, but the trade agreement has been criticized by labor groups, which say it has cost America manufacturing jobs and depressed U.S. wages. Greenspan said the rapid transition to high-technology, facilitated by free trade, had brought painful changes for many workers in industries that were becoming less competitive. But raising protectionist barriers in response to such ''wrenching'' adjustments would be the wrong response and risked slowing down overall economic growth, he warned. ``It would be a great tragedy were we to stop the wheels of progress because of an incapacity to assist the victims of progress,'' he said. ``The campaign to expand free trade is never won,'' Greenspan added. ``It is a continuing battle.'' Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited. === World Trade Organization Releases Global Trade Reports in OverDrive BookWorks 12:29 p.m. Apr 16, 1999 Eastern GENEVA, April 16 /PRNewswire/ -- The World Trade Organization (www.wto.org), the only international organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations, announced today the availability of WTO's Annual Report of the 1998 International Trade Statistics in both print, and a new searchable, interactive eBook format on CD-ROM. Through its publisher Bernan Associates, of Lanham, Maryland and their vendor, Automated Graphic Systems, (www.ags.com) the World Trade Organization's annual report utilized BookWorks eBook tools from OverDrive Systems. (www.overdrive.com) The new interactive eBook provides users with instant access to hundreds of tables, charts and spreadsheets, which cover all aspects of international trade and commerce organized by regions, industry, and service groups. Users can input data and perform instant analysis for real-time reflective comparisons in three languages, including English, French and Spanish. "We selected AGS because of their full-service capabilities for producing both the print and CD-ROM versions of the Annual Report and other WTO titles. Their knowledge of BookWorks eBook platform provided us with a valuable product for our clients", stated James Patton, Manager of WTO Affairs, Bernan. "BookWorks is already the leading open format tool for developing searchable e-book titles, catalogs and directories for CD ROM or download for desktop PCs, notebooks, enterprise or SoftBook use," stated OverDrive System's President Steve Potash. "The World Trade Organi
