[no subject]

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I agree that these issues are dominant. But would you argue that because
>of the unintended costs of international trade combined with productivity
>growth, countries should use protection to slow the growth rate down and
>try to control it? There are rather obvious problems with that answer as
>well.

Briefly, for the moment, I would just point out that "the unintended
costs of international trade" is buying into the same diversionary
language that characterises NAFTA as a "free trade" agreement.
NAFTA and the proposed FTAA would be much less controversial if
they WERE primarily about trade.  These agreements are PRIMARILY
about making wealth entitlements portable across national borders
by reforming economic and other institutions all around, to the
convenience of a smaller group of interests than are served by
freeing up trade.  Indeed, one of the attractions of the pursuit
of free trade *itself* is that it can involve such limited
constraints on the economic and other institutions of the
participants.

I was not talking primarily about trade, and hence not talking
primarily about the unintended consequences of trade.  I was
talking about wealth and power.  Further freeing up local elites
from bearing any of the local unintended consequences of their
actions is a step in the wrong direction.


--
Dr. Bruce R. McFarling, PhD
Bus. Office 1.72 -- (02) 4348-4078
School of Business
Faculty of the Central Coast
Newcastle University, Ourimbah