

Fare Well, Free Trade - fallentimes
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12815617&source=hptextfeature

======
jhancock
Trade between nations is so much different than trade intra-state. The biggest
difference is laws and enforceability. "free"-trade is not completely free.
Intra-state trade has the benefit of being more civilized (i.e. laws do have
weight). Between nations, its the wild, wild, west and there are many
externalities to this lawlessness.

I've lived in Shanghai for 9 years. China is still trying to figure out how to
make the "middle class" a reality before the general population starts to lose
faith. Up to now, this belief has ridden on the great rise in trade. The China
government has already set things up to blame the U.S. for what will be a slow
2009. Right or wrong, things are going to get rocky; and the lawlessness and
uncivilized externalities?..its only the beginning.

------
tokenadult
Anyone who traveled to China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan in 1982, as I did,
speaking Mandarin (and a little Cantonese and Taiwanese) and interacting with
ordinary people, turns into a lifelong fan of free trade. It helped me that I
read an abridged version of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations after finishing
that trip. I agree with the article cited in the opening post that the idea of
free trade is in political danger at the moment. Too bad.

~~~
iigs
From birth to age 18 I spent my entire life in two midwestern farming states,
and only visited a few others shortly thereafter. When I was 21 I had the good
fortune to take two trips to Japan for work purposes. I didn't spend much time
away from work, but I did soak up enough experience to come back with a huge
appreciation for the culture.

The notion of trade barriers between US states would be immediately dismissed
by almost anyone, yet any argument I've heard or can think of for
international trade barriers would fall by the same logic that they would if
applied intra-nationally. I hesitate to accuse people of xenophobia, as it's
unproductive to do so, but I can say that an ounce of cultural exposure at a
relatively young age probably saved me a pound of it in old age.

I'm proud to consider myself a citizen of the world.

~~~
kragen
Would you support trade unions being allowed to organize internationally? How
about international environmental regulation, like the one that overturned
California's MTBE ban? Do you think these institutions can be made to work as
well in the world as they do inside the US? (Not that they work well inside
the US, but they are currently much weaker internationally.)

~~~
iigs
It sounds like you and netcan are both going the same direction, so I'll
address both at the same time.

Personally I'm pretty libertarian. I know this is a volatile viewpoint to hold
on reddit (less so but still somewhat here). I try to be pragmatic about it,
so my viewpoint isn't 100% soundbite-consistent; things need to be evaluated
on a case by case basis.

Welfare: probably not. I think welfare is probably best executed at the state
level, much as it is in the US now. The subsidization of some states via
others is not addressed by this, and I suspect is largely your point.
Certainly within the first world even the meager income of the poor states
would be enough to care for their own, perhaps at considerable expense in
other aspects. If the issue is "trade embargos or extreme poverty" I'd
definitely flex to the (extreme) point that Cuba has, in that they've
basically rebuilt their agricultural system from first principles -- it
doesn't sound like a walk in the park, but it sounds like they've done well
for themselves given their situation.

Unions: abstain. My life experiences are not sufficient to force my opinions
about unions on others. My grandfather fed my father from their farmstead in
Iowa. As a child food was put on my plate by my father who was either self
employed or worked at companies where he could name every employee. I've only
ever worked at companies that have healthy meritocracy ecosystems, including
my current one where I'm a shareholder. I've never been a shareholder at a
unionized company, nor have I ever felt like I've been had by the balls, so to
speak, so I can't say how I'd want to be treated in that case.

Ecology/environment: nation trading associations may be useful. Whether the
issue at hand is Mediterranean bluefin tuna or hydrocarbon emissions,
states/countries financial motivation often collide with worldwide ecological
impact. In these cases applying financial pressure looks like the simplest and
most direct way to rebalance things. I'm not up on MTBE, but it sounds like a
non-financial issue: CA wanted a waiver to go non-oxygenated when ethanol
supplies were disrupted. I haven't seen the numbers, but in the absence of
numbers I side with California on it: use of non-oxygenated fuel would be
seemingly uncommon with the benefit constant and permanent (no MTBE tanks
leaking). "Disruption of ethanol supplies" could be considered a financial
issue in that they might be under-engineered. Perhaps an association of
nations could put financial pressure on a nation that was under-engineering
their supplies to ensure that their use of non-oxygenated fuels was minimized.

In summary: I think I may have overstepped the line when I used the word "any"
(as is usually the case with that damn word) -- there are certainly valid
cases for tempering financial interaction with other entities, particularly
when their actions harm you (world eco/enviro being an example). That said,
it's important for the health of a capitalist entity that people be able to
take the action that best serves them (in the absence of undue harm to
others). Furthermore, it's a two-way street, or, a rising tide floats all
boats -- China can buy Buicks because Americans can buy T-shirts. To the point
of the article, my life is better because of the products I've been able to
buy from wherever I choose to, and this holds true regardless of the current
state of the economy.

