Talk:Trade

The last paragraph about IP law doesn't seem to fit with the issue of Trade. Either it should be reworded to show how it ties in with trade, or it maybe should be moved to the Technology or Patent issue. BryceHarrington 14:53, 4 January 2006 (MST)

I agree. If the poster doesn't respond within a week, it will be removed.--pashdown 13:00, 13 January 2006 (MST)

Me, I find this page a little more isolationist than I'm comfortable with, and I think it fails to address a lot of the negative effects our trade policies have on the rest of the world. Good trade liberalization policies provide economic benefits for everyone concerned. However, as implemented by institutions by the IMF and the WTO, the vast bulk of the benefits of trade agreements have been going to developed countries. For example, recent talks have focused on dragging developing countries into intellectual property regimens similar to our own, which has great benefits for developed countries, but the benefits for developing countries are... well, controversial to say the least.

One of the major effects of trade barriers (tarriffs, subsidies, etc.) is to make goods more expensive to consumers, locking other countries out of participation in our markets, and reducing incentives for national industries to become more efficient. As the richest nation on Earth, we're in the best position to handle the disruptions of liberalization. Yet we continue to subsidize industries that don't really need protection (our own agricultural industry, plus hidden subsidies to the aerospace industry in the form of enormous military spending).

In Fair Trade For All, Joseph Stiglitz proposes a free trade regimen where every country opens its markets to countries with both a smaller GDP and smaller GDP per capita than themselves. I don't think it will get much traction in its current form, primarily because it would mean the U.S. would have to give up control of its trading policies with China. I think a modified proposal, wherein we would open our markets to countries with X% of our GDP and X% of our GDP per capita, if those countries would do the same for countries poorer than them.

The overall advantages are obvious: the poorest countries would gain access to vast new markets, while still being able to choose when and how to open access to theirs. Mid-range countries would receive access to markets vastly larger than the markets that receive access to them. The advantages to the U.S. are less obvious, but no less real. They include lower costs for goods and services, good will from developing nations (we could use some of that right now), a wealthier and more secure developing world, and the knowledge that--in stark contrast to our previous dealings with developing countries--we're absolutely doing the right thing.

Stiglitz is a Nobel prize-winning economist, and his books (Fair Trade For All and Globalization and its Discontents) are exceptionally worthwhile reads. If you're looking for good policy analysis, you wouldn't do badly to start with them.

I would additionally propose an end to most farming subsidies. They're constantly being justified by America's devotion to an ideal of "the family farm" that, to a first approximation, no longer exists. It would be a simple matter to make the largest farms ineligible for subsidies. The benefits? Lower taxes, continued protection of small farms, vast improvements in the standard of living in the developing world (as their agricultural products become competitive in our markets), etc.

P.S.: Blame Canada. --Bryce 08:52, 21 April 2006 (MDT)