Michael P writes:
Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to
oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational.
I wrote:
it's important to avoid Brad's style of argument here, which seems
similar to guilt-by-association: If Roger Milliken (boo, hiss) is for
something, it _must be_ bad. That's like saying that just because
Farrakan or the UC-Berkeley economics department is for something, it
must be wrong.
Brad writes:
BULLSHIT!!!
wow.
Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was
internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not
(African) labor but (American) capital.
That makes sense, in that as soon as the African laborers start getting
significant wage-gains, capital will move on to greener pastures. Of
course, fixed capital isn't totally mobile, so in the meantime, the
interested capitalists would support explicitly anti-labor governments that
repress unions and suppress wages. As part of this, they would use the
threat of capital mobility to avoid need to actually move capital (as they
do in the US).
In addition, the mobility of capital would speed up the commercialization
of agriculture, which would imply an amply supply of labor to the cities,
keeping wages down.
I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that
AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the
beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor.
No guilt-by-association.
Wait a sec! the logic of this is that RM is against AGOA, then it _must_ be
good for others. Suppose that he's against flying the Confederate flag on
the S. Carolina statehouse. In that case, would it be good for others to
fly it? I don't know about his position on that issue, so turn to a
different one: I am sure that RM is against the "expropriation of the
expropriators" (which includes capitalists such as himself). Does that mean
that it's good for others to expropriate the capitalists' assets? I'd say
so (if it's done in the right way), but I doubt that you say so.
Thus, using RM's position to justify your favoring of free trade _is_ akin
to a guilt-by-association argument. (Because a special interest like RM is
against AGOA, it must go against the public interest, however defined.)
Instead of using his opposition to AGOA as part of your argument in favor
of that act, you should argue that the act is good in itself.
BTW, I myself have a bias in favor of free trade. But unlike orthodox
economists, for whom this bias seems like the only consideration, I have
other biases which keep things in balance.
On this issue, I don't know if I ever told pen-l about a cousin who works
for Pat Buchanan (as a "think" tanker). He's against free trade because it
leads to rising class antagonism and disrupts society.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
