PKT
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: Quebec Protests

Perhaps a lot of the differences over the worth of globalisation/free trade
stems from acceptance vs non-acceptance of the essentially Ricardian
concepts which still dominate economic theory over trade.

I'm currently writing up a critique of this theory for the 'debunking
economics' website, and am curious about how many other PKTers have seen
"Fundamental issues in trade theory", edited by Ian Steedman (Macmillan,
London, 1979).

This book basically applies the Cambridge critique to Heckshler-Ohlin trade
theory. It points out that the concept of 'factor endowments' producing
tradeable commodities omits the question of how 'factors of production' are
themselves produced. Though I don't like how Steedman et al correct for
this, the implication of their analysis is that, once you allow that
machines have to be produced by machines and labor, you no longer get the
unambiguous gains from free trade which the theory touts.

Cheers,
Steve
At 03:27 AM 4/25/01 Wednesday, you wrote:

To: "Mason Clark" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Post Keynesian Thought" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Quebec Protests

Mason,
      Groovy, man, all is one, or so the great white
light tells me, or is it Jerry Garcia...  ????
      Of course production and jobs in specific
import competing industries have been lost.
But they have been more than offset by job
gains and real income gains in the rest of the
economy, including in the export sectors.  I confess
to enough traditionalism of economics to accept
the Ricardian argument that the gains from trade
outweigh the costs of trade, although the latter
are very concentrated and thus very noticeable
and able to organize political clout, at least most
of the time.
     As supports I would note the success of the
free trading Dutch economy compared with its
mercantilist rivals, that impressed Adam Smith,
the success of the US economy which has no
internal protectionism, which in turn inspired the
free trade initiatives of the European Union, which
has done pretty well for itself.  Would you advocate
a return to protectionism within the US?  Perhaps
Kansas should enact restrictions on imports of
soybeans from Illinois to protect output and employment
in the soybean industry in Kansas?
      There are plenty of industries in the US
with protectionism of one sort another.  Much of
this is organized in subtle ways, e.g. the "voluntary"
export quotas for automobiles the Japanese accepted
in the 1980s after a surge of Japanese imports hit
the US auto industry hard, or the textile industry
protectionism associated with the multifiber agreement
that Richard Nixon negotiated as a payoff to Strom
Thurmond for delivering the 1968 Republican
presidential nomination to him rather than Ronald Reagan.
Or we have the pathetic case of the Panamanian broom
exporters who were shut out by an anti-dumping suit
brought by Nebraska broom manufacturers.  Costs of
broom production in Canada were used to argue that
the nasty Panamanians were selling at below their
costs of production, ooh ooh.  I could go on and on.....
      I would remind that after NAFTA and the WTO
were signed, US output grew and the unemployment
rate declined.  Which brings up an important point,
especially for  this list.  Unemployment is more a
macroeconomic issue than a microeconomic issue of
trade protectionism.
      Thus, I strongly support efforts to directly aid those
who are laid off because of import competition.  This
is a much better approach than trying to preserve their
jobs through protectionism.  Unlike the US, Sweden
engages in active retraining and other financial assistance
for such persons.  Furthermore, although I have some
disagreements with some of the theoretical arguments
put forward by those folks, I am very sympathetic with
the general idea of employer of last resort schemes by
governments.  There is no reason to have unemployment,
and we do not need protectionism to guarantee that
there will be no unemployment.  Indeed, the evidence of
the trade wars of 1930-31 suggests that generalized
protectionism is a very good way to totally kill both
output and employment.
      So, I stand by my position.  Bring on the LSD!
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mason Clark" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Quebec Protests


> Barkley,
>
>     I don't want to be a nuisance, but I'm flabbergasted by your
> recent posts.  What's going on with you?
>
> >the main punitive
> >mechanism for those naughty foreigners who dare to
> >sell products in the US at prices below the costs of
> >production of US producers.
>
>    Are you unaware of the vast influx of goods that have
> displaced U.S. production?  Where has been the U.S.
> protectionism you decry?
>
> I think LSD has been fed to the pkt list.
>
>         Mason
>
>
>
>
>


Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
LOCKED BAG 1797
PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
Australia
s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
            http://www.debunking-economics.com
            http://www.stevekeen.net


[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]