I somewhat agree with you on pollution. I tend to feel, however, that often the primary beneficiaries of pollution in developing nations are multinational corporations whose owners live in developed nations where such pollution is considered unacceptable. It is not clear to me that today's multinational operations in third world countries are really helping those countries in quite the same way that the self-directed post-World-War-II industrialization helped, say, Korea or Japan. (As a side note, it seems that these nations developed themselves relying very heavily on protectionist policies. Does free trade always help? Would the Japanese and Koreans be better off today if they had allowed free trade immediately after WWII?)
Labor practices are tricky. What makes it OK for a parent to choose to send their eight year old child to work eighty hours a week in a factory? Why is it none of our business? I'm not going to argue that every country should have identical labor policies, but I don't think we should have nothing whatsoever to say about the most egregious cases, especially when the corporations involved are American.
I agree that comparative advantage "functions" regardless of whatever wacky policies governments impose. However, the most efficient mix will clearly vary as a function of these policies. Is it always wrong to vary your policies in order to promote jobs at home in any way? If so, then shouldn't we go further, and give additional tax breaks to all companies that move jobs abroad? What is sacrosanct about the current mix of tax policies? Again, as I understand it, the only move Kerry is planning to make against outsourcing is changing the tax mix. Contrast this with Bush, who talks free trade, but is happy to pander for votes by imposing steel tariffs, lifting them only when the WTO rules them illegal. I guess I don't understand why you're so strongly opposed to Kerry; to me, his policies come off as pretty moderate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
Re: Comparative advantage
Date: 2004-08-18 11:46 am (UTC)Labor practices are tricky. What makes it OK for a parent to choose to send their eight year old child to work eighty hours a week in a factory? Why is it none of our business? I'm not going to argue that every country should have identical labor policies, but I don't think we should have nothing whatsoever to say about the most egregious cases, especially when the corporations involved are American.
I agree that comparative advantage "functions" regardless of whatever wacky policies governments impose. However, the most efficient mix will clearly vary as a function of these policies. Is it always wrong to vary your policies in order to promote jobs at home in any way? If so, then shouldn't we go further, and give additional tax breaks to all companies that move jobs abroad? What is sacrosanct about the current mix of tax policies? Again, as I understand it, the only move Kerry is planning to make against outsourcing is changing the tax mix. Contrast this with Bush, who talks free trade, but is happy to pander for votes by imposing steel tariffs, lifting them only when the WTO rules them illegal. I guess I don't understand why you're so strongly opposed to Kerry; to me, his policies come off as pretty moderate.