Hi Ed,
At 16:05 06/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Keith,
>
>I think you are being a little unfair to the poor old Neanderthalers who
>did, after all, last about 100,000 years, but disappeared about 35,000 years
>ago, perhaps because we moved into their habitat and either drove them to
>extinction or absorbed them into our own species. During their long sojourn
>on Earth, they must have dealt with a considerable variety of environmental
>changes.
Yes, I think your last point is a good one. We might not ever know what
gave the final coup de grace to the Neanderthals, but their extinction came
pretty close to man's invention of the spring-loaded hunting spear
(atlatl). This meant that man could actively start to select and kill
individual large grazing animals quite easily -- which, of course,
Neanderthals couldn't with their ordinary spears. As the large animals
disappeared, so did the Neanderthals. They couldn't hunt small animals
because the bow and arrow was still 20,000 years in the future.
(EW)
>As to your main point, I too favour free trade. The problem I see is that
>it has rarely if ever existed. Historically, trade has been anything but
>free.
I think it was almost certainly totally free between about 30,000BC when
man was beginning to colonise the world (and needed to trade essential
resources with the adjacent traibe) and about 5,000BC when the beginnings
of state-like cities and empires were starting as agriculture developed.
But from then onwards we had increasing state interference.
>>>>
Much of the wealth of today's rich world is based on the colonization
>and systematic exploitation of the poor world. Empires were founded on gold
>from the Americas, spices from Asia and slaves from Africa.
>>>>
No, I don't think you can say that. True, all the above were significant
activities and some city-ports, such as Bristol, a few miles down the road
from here, did very well out of this sort of trade. But, confining
ourselves to the economic growth of the UK (and some European countries)
and its (undoubted) exploitation of the poor world in the last 250 years or
so, I think most economic historians would agree that the 'benefits' (to
us) were relatively mild compared with the real lift-off of the late 18th
century when agriculture was industrialised with iron implements and then
other innovations. The domestic market in each of these countries was the
initial engine of growth. (I believe that most historians would agree that
the British Empire, for example, was probably more of an economic drain
than gain throughout most of its history.)
Once the domestic lift-offs had occurred in England, America and other
European countries then the huge rise in the export trade that quickly
followed was mainly confined to these countries. At that time (circa 1800)
the average standard of living in India was just as high, if not higher
than in England. At the same time, China had a much more advanced iron
technology than the English. It was the relatively easy shipping routes up
and down the European and Baltic coasts, and across the Atlantic between
between Europe and America, which actually accelerated economic growth.
Trade with the rest of the world was a small fraction of this -- mainly
because more distant countries didn't want to trade or their industrial
centres were not near coastlines and their goods were too costly to
transport.
(EW)
>It is true that
>trade goods also flowed from the rich world to the poor, but the bargains
>were highly unequal, like obtaining Manhattan Island for a few beads.
>Currently, large multinationals are not interested in free trade, but in
>obtaining cheap resources and cheap skilled labour. While it is true that
>poor countries benefit, as southern India has from high tech, the objectives
>nevertheless remain exploitative.
Yes, of course, large multinationals want to exploit countries with cheap
labour -- in exactly the same way that each one of us will try to buy goods
at the cheapest possible price. But it's rarely the sort of excessive
exploitation that opponents of free trade talk about. It's usually the case
that if the low wages of multinational workers in poor countries is
multiplied with other factors of production (high transport costs, poor
infrastructure, low educational levels, etc) in those countries then the
resultant productivity is not a great deal lower than if production is done
in the high-wage parent countries. There's a margin, and it's large enough
enough to be attractive to a multinational of course, but it's not as
excessive as simple comparisons between wage levels would imply.
Multinationals know that wages in poor countries rise within a few years to
those of developed countries -- usually, other things being equal, within
10-15 years at the outside. Besides, multinationals usually pay more than
the average wage in the poor countries anyway. Figures from the Institute
for International Economics show that multinational affiliates in poor
countries pay about twice the domestic wage from inception. As the
standard of living of poor countries rise then this ratio gradually reduces
to about 1.5 the domestic wage. Finally when the 'exploited' country
becomes mature then wages are the same as in the multinationals' home
countries.
>In order to have real free trade, you would need to define and establish in
>international law that most elusive of all concepts - the level playing
>field.
Apart from trying to reduce tariffs all round, I cannot see how one can
establish a level playing field (in terms of wage levels, working
conditions, and a multitude of other factors). Too true it's elusive. It's
impossible to define, as you imply below.
>As one can see from examples like the European Union and NAFTA, this
>is not easy to do even for countries which are similar in form of
>government, standard of living, etc. It would be far more difficult for
>countries as different as those of Western Europe and Southeast Asia or
>Africa. So, good luck in promoting free trade, but please do recognize that
>you are favouring something that may be about as difficult to achieve as a
>world without sin.
The basic problem is that the agricultural revolution has caused a huge
overhang of rural populations around the world which either cannot be
sustained by agriculture any longer, or don't want to be sustained by it
and want to share in the standard of living that they have seen on TV or
heard about. So scores of millions all over the world are flocking into the
cities every year (and millions are also migrating illegally into developed
countries whatever efforts are made to stop them). So this is the real
practical problem which is affecting free trade (and its corollary, free
movement of labour). It can't happen until great reductions of populations
take place -- with simultaneous improvements in health and education.
Free trade by itself won't solve these problems (though it helps at the
margins) -- only time will -- but preventing free trade only makes the
situation far worse.
I think we'll have free trade one day.
Keith
>
>Ed Weick
>
>> Under a different thread, Harry Pollard and I are having what I hope is a
>> good-natured argument about economic matters, but there is one thing we
>are
>> in total agreement about. This is that free trade is essential for any
>sort
>> of civilised progress of mankind.
>>
>> In my previous message I tried to emphasise once again that free trade in
>> essential resources was the key behaviour which distinguished mankind from
>> his cousin species, Neanderthal Man, and allowed him to start spreading
>all
>> over the world some 50,000 years ago. The evidence, so far, is that
>> Neanderthal Man (with, incidentally, a larger brain than Sapiens) did not
>> happen upon the benefits of trade and remained isolated in specific
>> habitats which, although having a full complement of food and other
>> resources at that time, became vulnerable in due course to even slight
>> environmental changes.
>>
>> Whatever else may be said about the unique qualities of mankind, the
>> activity of trade between two culturally disparate groups -- who may even
>> hate each other on other matters -- is certainly one of them. Amazing
>> examples of this occurred in the Bosnian war a few years ago when Muslims
>> and Serbs would be fighting each other savagely one day, and trading
>> essential foodstuffs with each other the next. Touching examples of this
>> are also described in a book by which I am presently reading ("Towards the
>> Bitter End: the diaries of Victor Klemperer 1942-45") of wartorn Germany
>> when poor starving German citizens who hated Jews would nevertheless trade
>> essential items like potatoes, matches and false teeth (even at risk of
>> imprisonment or death) with their Jewish neighbours -- equally poor and
>> starving (and awaiting being transported to death camps) -- because both
>> were able to survive a little better from trading.
>>
>> This persistence of trade, even when outlawed by officaldom and carried
>out
>> at great risk, suggests that it is an instinctive behaviour and we would
>be
>> denying an important part of our human nature to oppose it.
>>
>> Of course, it is not only the anti-globalisation protesters who are trying
>> to oppose free trade, but also powerful corporations and unions within
>> countries like America and in the EEC who still impose high tariffs
>against
>> foodstuffs and textiles from Third World countries.
>>
>> I couldn't expect anti-globalisation protesters to suddenly raise banners
>> with slogans like "Support free trade". But as they are mostly young and
>> naturally need to be seen to be against authority, they could use slogans
>> like "Oppose Tariffs". In this they would then be on the side of
>> organisations like Friends of the Earth (FoE) or Fairtrade Foundation (FT)
>> which are as equally concerned with the plight of the Third World as
>> protesters, but realise that it is tariffs, not free trade, that's the
>real
>> nasty.
>>
>> Even though the aims of WTO are laudable, there is much that is wrong with
>> their rules so far, and I'm fervently hoping that the arguments of FoE and
>> FT (together with Third World negotiators) will make some headway when the
>> next meeting takes place in Doha. The worst thing that could happen for
>the
>> Third World, particularly at this time of world-wide recession, is that
>> this meeting will fail as badly as the last one in Quebec.
>>
>> Keith Hudson
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
>> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
