I have to stop answering everything. I'm not getting anything else done. Must not insist on having last word.
treptoplax's point about the relative value of a clean environment is still valid, even if it's a corporation doing the polluting. Locally contained pollution is simply worth different amounts to different populations. As far as whether the companies are "really helping" poor countries, I'm not sure I see your point about the contrast with Korea or Japan. Industrialization still occurs, jobs are still created, and the wealth of the country still increases rapidly.
Your side note is a very interesting topic. I highly recommend The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393318885/) for a comprehensive historical perspective. England in the early 19th century and post-WW2 reconstruction both seem to have benefited from an initial dose of protectionism. The benefits tend to be more than nullified by the continuation of such policies past the point of usefulness. Governmental industrial policy is almost always an abject failure, and it's quite unfortunate that there are a few shining examples of success that can be cited in the defense of what hardly ever works.
Child labor:
Child labor is the least awful of very bad options. Child prostitution or picking up an assault rifle and joining the Lord's Resistance Army are reasonable alternatives, and if we curtail child labor, we're just going to encourage the really vile alternatives. This is what happens if you just refuse to buy products made with child labor, and don't do anything else (which seems to be the primary response advocated by activists in the US and Europe).
The International Labor Organization (a piece of the UN) estimates that ending child labor would cost $760 billion. Wake me when we budget it.
Does Child Labor Decline with Improving Economic Status? (http://www.nber.org/papers/w10134)
Differing national tax structures do create distortions in the comparative advantages the nations enjoy. One of the main problems with our current corporate tax system, which is made even worse by Kerry's proposal, is that it is so radically different from everyone else's that it does create some pretty perverse incentives. (Absolutely nothing is sacrosanct about our current mix.)
I'm not sure how you vary your policy to "promote jobs at home". You can artificially improve the comparative advantage of some jobs over others, but (pretty much directly derived from the fundamental principle behind comparative advantage) you can't just add to your national wealth creation by doing that.
The steel tariffs were pandering. If Kerry came out and criticized them, or our agricultural subsidies, or any other of our protectionism, cool. Instead he picked the vile John Edwards as his running mate. Kerry's "Six-Point Plan" on trade includes the following:
Push Bush to reinstate the "Super 301" process immediately, so the administration is required to report and act on foreign trade barriers.
Super 301 is painfully evil.
A 120-day review of all existing trade agreements
Yikes. That's a disaster in the making. These are treaties. Expecting to be able to insert amendments is unrealistic at best. ("Review" is code for "shitcan".)
More forceful efforts to stop illegal currency manipulation by China and other countries
This is plain ridiculous.
Outside of the six point plan,
Support Jobs In America Through "Buy American" Guidelines.
....U.S. federal contracts where possible should be performed by American workers. They support stronger "Buy American" guidelines for defense and homeland security. John Kerry and John Edwards also support the consumer's "Right to Know" where call center calls they receive are originating from.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
Re: Comparative advantage
Date: 2004-08-18 05:42 pm (UTC)Your side note is a very interesting topic. I highly recommend The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393318885/) for a comprehensive historical perspective. England in the early 19th century and post-WW2 reconstruction both seem to have benefited from an initial dose of protectionism. The benefits tend to be more than nullified by the continuation of such policies past the point of usefulness. Governmental industrial policy is almost always an abject failure, and it's quite unfortunate that there are a few shining examples of success that can be cited in the defense of what hardly ever works.
Child labor:
Child labor is the least awful of very bad options. Child prostitution or picking up an assault rifle and joining the Lord's Resistance Army are reasonable alternatives, and if we curtail child labor, we're just going to encourage the really vile alternatives. This is what happens if you just refuse to buy products made with child labor, and don't do anything else (which seems to be the primary response advocated by activists in the US and Europe).
The International Labor Organization (a piece of the UN) estimates that ending child labor would cost $760 billion. Wake me when we budget it.
Differing national tax structures do create distortions in the comparative advantages the nations enjoy. One of the main problems with our current corporate tax system, which is made even worse by Kerry's proposal, is that it is so radically different from everyone else's that it does create some pretty perverse incentives. (Absolutely nothing is sacrosanct about our current mix.)
I'm not sure how you vary your policy to "promote jobs at home". You can artificially improve the comparative advantage of some jobs over others, but (pretty much directly derived from the fundamental principle behind comparative advantage) you can't just add to your national wealth creation by doing that.
The steel tariffs were pandering. If Kerry came out and criticized them, or our agricultural subsidies, or any other of our protectionism, cool. Instead he picked the vile John Edwards as his running mate. Kerry's "Six-Point Plan" on trade includes the following:
Super 301 is painfully evil.
Yikes. That's a disaster in the making. These are treaties. Expecting to be able to insert amendments is unrealistic at best. ("Review" is code for "shitcan".)
This is plain ridiculous.
Outside of the six point plan,
Feh. Stupid, stupid, stupid.