05-27-2006, 08:36 AM
Ceorana Posted on May 27 2006, 01:15 AM
Quote: I'd like to point out that UN-mandated free trade could be useful in some cases, and we may not want to rule it out in all cases like this says. An example is the recycling one, where free trade was mandated in order to promote recycling.
QUOTE (Sober Thought)
In short, if "free trade" means free trade only when it is in the interests of the largest partner, then I am against what is effectively the law of the jungle. Maintaining an honest if inefficient international trade regime which has no pretentions to be free is better than having somebody tell you it's raining as they piddle on your shoes.
That's not true in NS, though. Since compliance with resolutions is automatic, no one could violate them at all. [/quote]
I'm not sure that recycling requires free trade to work. In fact, Ricardian free trade would almost certainly undermine recycling efforts. Richer countries or those with more regulations against pollution could simply export their wastes to poorer or more lax jurisdictions. David Ricardo would consider this difference a matter of efficiency.
As a RL Canadian, I am ashamed to say that this is what we engage in.
Toronto, my current home and the largest city in Canada, exports its garbage down Highway 401 to dump in Michigan instead of finding a better solution in Canada. This is only feasible under a free trade agreement, in which a country has surrendered its sovereign right to refuse "imports" if one may refer to refuse as an import. :angry: And in keeping with the softwood lumber shenanigans, Michigan and other border states were enacting de facto bans on Canadian garbage to circumvent NAFTA. Its funny that the U.S. states bordering Mexico don't feel quite so strongly about exporting garbage. 
You're mostly right about your second point, Ceorana, namely that NS UN has the Compliance Ministry to keep everybody on the straight and narrow. However, the Ministry cannot apply a resolution if the latter's meaning is not clear or consistent. For instance, if the current resolution passes, how can the CM enforce:
"ENCOURAGING the practice of ?fair trade?, which is defined as an equitable and fair relationship between the marketers in one nation to the producers in another, actively working to provide the labor of producer nations with livable wages, hours, benefits, and opportunities for advancement,"
Again, fair trade in my estimation is as laudable goal as free trade, but is impossible to define or regulate except at its margins. Classical and neo-classical economists are against the very idea of a legislated minimum wage, let alone one which actually resulted in "livable wages." This is why a person making minimum wage in my province pays nothing in income taxes and is classified by most official government measurements and virtually all those of NGOs as living below the poverty line.
Similarly, how can the CM force compliance when a resolution includes within it the right to opt out of any future FTA-like provision? It would require and even greater number of silly repeals than occur now.
Quote: I'd like to point out that UN-mandated free trade could be useful in some cases, and we may not want to rule it out in all cases like this says. An example is the recycling one, where free trade was mandated in order to promote recycling.
QUOTE (Sober Thought)
In short, if "free trade" means free trade only when it is in the interests of the largest partner, then I am against what is effectively the law of the jungle. Maintaining an honest if inefficient international trade regime which has no pretentions to be free is better than having somebody tell you it's raining as they piddle on your shoes.
That's not true in NS, though. Since compliance with resolutions is automatic, no one could violate them at all. [/quote]
I'm not sure that recycling requires free trade to work. In fact, Ricardian free trade would almost certainly undermine recycling efforts. Richer countries or those with more regulations against pollution could simply export their wastes to poorer or more lax jurisdictions. David Ricardo would consider this difference a matter of efficiency.
As a RL Canadian, I am ashamed to say that this is what we engage in.
Toronto, my current home and the largest city in Canada, exports its garbage down Highway 401 to dump in Michigan instead of finding a better solution in Canada. This is only feasible under a free trade agreement, in which a country has surrendered its sovereign right to refuse "imports" if one may refer to refuse as an import. :angry: And in keeping with the softwood lumber shenanigans, Michigan and other border states were enacting de facto bans on Canadian garbage to circumvent NAFTA. Its funny that the U.S. states bordering Mexico don't feel quite so strongly about exporting garbage. You're mostly right about your second point, Ceorana, namely that NS UN has the Compliance Ministry to keep everybody on the straight and narrow. However, the Ministry cannot apply a resolution if the latter's meaning is not clear or consistent. For instance, if the current resolution passes, how can the CM enforce:
"ENCOURAGING the practice of ?fair trade?, which is defined as an equitable and fair relationship between the marketers in one nation to the producers in another, actively working to provide the labor of producer nations with livable wages, hours, benefits, and opportunities for advancement,"
Again, fair trade in my estimation is as laudable goal as free trade, but is impossible to define or regulate except at its margins. Classical and neo-classical economists are against the very idea of a legislated minimum wage, let alone one which actually resulted in "livable wages." This is why a person making minimum wage in my province pays nothing in income taxes and is classified by most official government measurements and virtually all those of NGOs as living below the poverty line.
Similarly, how can the CM force compliance when a resolution includes within it the right to opt out of any future FTA-like provision? It would require and even greater number of silly repeals than occur now.