a consistent position?

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

      Well, I have been way overposting and intend
to mostly shut up now, especially as Ric seems to be
cracking down on this thread.  So, let me lay out
a possible position on the trade/investment issue
that will not please some, but might others.  (Yes, I
am moving off the "dollarization" issue, per se.)
     This is especially in light of the communique
coming out of la ville de Quebec, the details of which
I have not seen yet, although it appears that it does
not have that many details yet.  They are what are to
be negotiated by 2005, if at all.  As we know the
devil is in the details, however boring....
      I would characterize my position as being not that
far from that of Jagdish Bhagwati, pro-free trade but
also in favor of restrictions on capital movements.  This
puts me against certain details of NAFTA and also
probably the intent of Bush and the US team in Quebec.
But the capital movements I would support restricting
are the short term ones that create so much havoc on
the forex markets.  It would appear that they need to be
more direct.  In this I am reasonably in accord with Paul
Davidson on the Tobin tax, seeing it as basically ineffectual,
although I have disagreements with parts of Paul's position
that have been aired at length on this list before.
      The most difficult parts of the agreement as far as I
am concerned involve the environmental issues.  It is
clear that NAFTA and probably the WTO have both been
crafted in ways that simply go too far in damaging local
autonomy with regard to environmental and safety laws
and regulations.  The case of NAFTA being used to force
Canadians to purchase polluting gasoline is the sort of
thing that certainly must be avoided in any reasonable
agreement.
       What becomes more problematic is when one country
uses its protectionist powers to attempt to enforce some
kind of environmental standard that it has in its own country
on another country.  This is can easily degenerate into an
unacceptable form of imperialism.  With regard to the very
sensitive issue of preservation of endangered species,
I think that the way to go is to have multilateral agreements
on the environment, per se, and use these as the method
of dealing with this problem.  These agreements already
exist.  They can be strengthened.  But, unilateral efforts by
people in the US to impose our views on this matter outside
of such mutually agreed upon agreements by using trade
protectionism is very reasonably condemned by most people
in less developed countries, especially when it is clear that
there are domestic producers in the US who are gaining at
the expense of their producers through such shenanigans.
        Thus, countries should have the right to protect their
own environments and not be enforced to accept pollution
coming from somebody else.  Countries do not have the
right to impose their environmental views and laws on other
countries using the trade weapon.
      BTW, of course the restrictions on capital movements
that I am supporting are not necessarily those that many
would support.  I would accept long-term investment that
would increase employment.  Of course such employment
is almost certainly going to involve lower wages and poorer
working conditions than exist in the US (unless the
investment is in Canada).  It is fine to say that this should
not be the case, but I am afraid that Krugman is right on this
one, it is extremely unrealistic to insist that it not be via the
trade weapon.  To do so will mean no jobs, not better jobs
for those in those countries.
       To quote Joan Robinson:  "It is better to be exploited
than not to be exploited at all."
Barkley Rosser