-Caveat Lector-
Okay, I guess I don't have anything better to do so I'll take the bait. I
live in the Seattle suburbs and have been subjected to nightly tear gas T.V.
for the past week and I just read Mr. Friedman's editorial. It read a bit
like a Microsoft commercial. But it's rhetoric, anecdotes and diversion.
Nothing more. I'm not an economist, but I don't think you need to be one to
put this in perspective. My comments are general in nature rather than
countering each of Friedman's points, some of which are truisms. The bottom
line is that Thomas Friedman thinks that expanded trade is a good thing and
the W.T.O. necessary. All the rest is diversionary window dressing and name
calling. So what about trade?
Yes! Trade has elevated aggregate standards of living in the U.S. and
presumably throughout the world. Yes, trade in the American context
particularly benefits people who export high technology products or who are
involved in the "information" economy. Lawyers usually love free trade
because they aren't at risk at loosing their job and their buying power is
increased by lower cost imports. Economists love free trade even more. I
am
certain this has nothing to do with their university jobs being almost
completely immune from dislocations associated with trade. We seem to think
it's tacky when union workers clumsily protest to save their jobs but we
tolerate educators, doctors and lawyers protecting their careers through
credentialism. Why? The cost to our society of overpriced domestic steel
is
likely a lot smaller than the cost of credentialism in law, medicine and
education. Maybe it's because the professionals look like someone we want
to
be whereas the typical union guy just looks like someone who needs a shave
and some exercise. In any case, the benefits of expanded trade accrue
disproportionately to smart, educated people. And expanding trade is not
the
only way we can improve efficiencies within economies.
Trade dislocates people who work in low tech manufacturing, textiles and
small scale agriculture. This is nothing new. Workers have always been
displaced with the invention of new technology. Agricultural mechanization
transformed a society in which 70%+ of the population was involved in the
production of food to a mere 2-3% today. China and India have over one
billion "excess" people involved in agricultural production. It will be
"interesting" to see what kind of dislocations occur as these people
transitions to industrial production as agriculture is mechanized and
whether
these dislocations will manifest themselves in areas outside of economics.
"Fair Trade" can only truly occur between countries with similar wages,
taxation schemes, subsidies, productivity, labor and environmental
standards,
available land, land use laws, standards of living and natural resource
bases. Reduction of trade barriers implies an imposition of uniformity
among
most of these variables in order to achieve competitiveness. How can
European transportation industries be as efficient as their American
counterpart when gasoline there is almost 4 times as expensive? The reason
gas is so expensive is because the Europeans are trying to discourage the
use
of cars. They have artificially reduced the efficiencies of many sectors of
their economies in order to achieve social goals. Free trade threatens
those
social goals. That is why they resist and this is what Mr. Friedman doesn't
understand. To truly compete with America, Europe would need to slash
taxes,
close many of its farms, increase its work week, decrease its vacation time,
dismantle its welfare state, crush its unions, change its land use laws to
accommodate American style land use, decrease train service, build more
roads, etc. These things affect people! If someone tried to impose this
stuff on America, we would bomb them. Yet types like Friedman just can't
figure out what the problem is. Why the resistance? Maybe the peasants are
a little slow. That's why we need experts like Michael Mandelbaum at the
Council on Foreign Relations to clarify our thinking.
In an optimized world, the U.S. and Canada would produce grain and software,
the Japanese consumer electronics, the South Koreans steel and super
tankers,
the Swiss fine watches and numbered bank accounts, the Germans good cars,
the
Brazilians timber, etc., etc. This is of course a *gross* over
simplification. However, there certainly isn't any good economic reason for
the Japanese to use scarce land to grow rice. And the economic
rationalization for the more densely populated European countries to use
their land for agriculture isn't much better. There isn't any good
rationalization for Americans to produce anything but specialty small lot
steel when so many other countries can produce steel cheaper. In fact, it
would probably not be justifiable for Americans to harvest many types of
timber when Canada could supply that timber cheaper. And in true free
trade,
there would be true free movement of people. Why would a software company
want to pay an American software engineer 100K per year when they could
contract that work to East Indians for a fraction of that amount? Yes, they
probably do that now over the internet anyway. The list could go on and on.
But the point is that in a truly optimized global trading system, some
countries would produce neither their own food nor their own power while
other countries would export both. This assumes an unprecedented level of
cooperation throughout the world that would engender massive power among
some
regions (we supply your food) and massive vulnerability among other regions
(you supply our food). But Mr. Friedman is a globalist and as such probably
doesn't consider these required levels of cooperation problematic. I
suspect
the Japanese might differ in their conclusions.
World free trade and economic integration are not inevitable. If they were,
they wouldn't require organizations like the World Bank, I.M.F., W.T.O. and
to a lesser extent the U.N. to "facilitate" trade and integration. "Rules
are a substitute for walls -- when you don't have walls you need more
rules?" Is this the "invisible hand" of capitalism of which we have been
taught? Or a lawyer salivating over the prospect of consulting fees? If
"free trade" is really such a no-brainer, then why is the U.S. having to
drag
everybody to these bureaucratic meetings and fight over minutiae? Some of
the member countries consist of people who are highly educated and literate
yet they bring to the table fundamental philosophical differences. Will our
media investigate their positions and supporting reasons. Why bother? Mr.
Friedman has summed up the case. Just get on board, already. You're a
regressive Luddite otherwise.
Consider an analogy. Think of trade as being a component of a society just
as a job is a component of a marriage. Trade can be made to optimize the
economic input into a society in the same way a job can be made to optimize
economic input into a marriage (through say, overtime pay). Now, is it
possible that through overtime or excessive job preoccupation, a marriage
might suffer? At the same time that money is optimized? Say it isn't so!
Is is possible to optimize the economic input to a society at the expense of
that society? To say no would assume no linkage. Does the economy exist to
benefit the society or is it the other way way around? These flat-earth
questions are probably the reasons why some European countries artificially
limit business hours on nights and weekends for retail businesses. If you
and the kids aren't schlepping around Walmart at 7:30 Tuesday night just
before picking up a quick Quarter Pounder with Cheese to go, you might
actually be at home helping your kids with their homework. Which activities
create better kids? Which activities maximize revenues to corporations? If
employees don't have to staff retail businesses to 10:00 p.m., might they
have a better relationship with their families? In an economy whose service
sector is expanding, should we care about the families of service industry
workers? In addition: Is it good for a country not to have any farms? Is
it good for a country not to produce its own power? Is it good for ex-union
factory workers to work as the "greeters" in Walmart? Would a dislocated
economist be willing to work at Walmart? How many family breakups can be
tracked to economic dislocations? And how much money is a wrecked childhood
valued at? Is reducing the amount of economic "diversity" in an economy a
good thing?
Maximum revenue does not necessarily produce maximum pleasure / health /
happiness. This is where Mr. Friedman's has a problem. His worldview is
predictably money centered and no, he doesn't care about working conditions
in Sri Lanka. He claims the protesters were blaming the W.T.O. for a world
without walls. Nonsense. The protesters I heard interviewed had a
surprisingly good grasp on what they were protesting about. They were
protesting trade uber alles. They were protesting the impact that trade
has
on everything from sea turtles and old growth trees and export of
genetically
engineered foodstuffs to corporate imposed globalization. They clearly
understood that the W.T.O. is an organization that facilitates trade and
generally puts trade ahead of other concerns (like sea turtles or
deforestation) when there is a dispute. These activists would generally put
their pet cause ahead of trade. Unfathomable from Mr. Friedman's point of
view. Something ahead of money? The peasants are certainly primitive.
Finally, Mr. Friedman statement that "Every country and company that has
improved its labor, legal and environmental standards has done so because of
more global trade, more integration, more Internet -- not less. These are
the
best tools we have for improving global governance" is just garbage.
Countries/companies that have improved the former are the
countries/companies
that could afford to. It translates into Western companies erecting Western
factories in Third World countries designed to meet the known labor
standards
of Westerners likely to tour the factory. Insisting on Western style labor
practices actually advantages our corporations at the expense of the
indigenous businesses because our corporations know the precise hoops they
have to jump through to keep the activists quiet. We claim we want to
improve
the situation of the Chinese masses so we follow a policy of "constructive
engagement" with China and expand trade. Yet we outlaw trade with Cuba
where
presumably the same theories would apply. When we wanted to impose change
in
South Africa we reduced trade with that country. We want to correct the bad
behavior of Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and others, but more often
than
not, our actions seek to limit contact, trade, travel and cultural exchange
with these countries. We wanted to change Serbia's behavior in their Kosovo
Province. Did our government propose using trade and the internet? What we
really practice is different policies for different countries based on our
own perceived self interest at that time, not a principle of social justice
via trade and the internet. And constructive engagement is really code for
"there is too much money at stake to not trade with China."
If the goal is to optimize economic input (and thus standards of living)
into
the U.S. economy, then Mr. Friedman's world view is correct. Free trade is
the way to go. But that's just one way to look at it. We shouldn't need
reminding that trade was neither invented by the internet nor the collapse
of
the Berlin Wall. We are not in some new era. Trade has been around for a
long time. Egypt imported large quantities of timber from Lebanon thousands
of years ago. Did that trade benefit both regions? Certainly. But what do
we have today? A deforested Lebanon and an Egypt that requires massive
foreign aid just to keep an Islamic revolution at bay. The trade of
thousands of years ago is irrelevant today. Thus, while Mr. Friedman has a
valid point of view, it should be one of numerous. In addition to
economists
and large corporations, we should consider the opinions of psychologists,
historians, philosophers, environmentalists, (gasp) families and possibly
others to obtain a less money-centered consensus. Journalists are probably
the least qualified to contemplate these questions as they don't lend
themselves to concision. Money is real important but it isn't everything.
It's *not* the economy, stupid! It's civilization.
-our children and our childrens childrens life
Rob Gleiser
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
