[lit-ideas] Re: WTO and the Balance of Trade
- From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:53:28 -0400
But, car companies will go where labor (stationary) is cheap.
It's why they went to China.
You're describing the difference between "free trade" and "absolute
trade."
In the classical free trade model, which is based on competing
nations, a textile plant in Scotland competes against a textile
plant in France. In the classical model, plant design, labor, and
other national efficiencies compete.
In the "absolute trade" model, textile plants are dismantled in
Scotland and France, their valuable parts shipped to China, their
less valuable parts sold for scrap, their labor forces sacked, so
that a single plant is created in Burma, using child labor, lower
environmental standards, and a global distribution chain that uses
the price point to force the goods on world markets.
Notice the difference. In absolute trade, it's a race to the bottom
for efficiencies. Nations (i.e., labor pools, manufacturing
capacities) are sacrificed for individual investment returns.
Scotland does not compete with France; instead, a bunch of
shareholders violently disrupt local and national life for ends that
only serve their stock price. And who owns their stock? Third
parties: Saudi princes, Dutch bankers, international consortiums,
few or none of whom have any interest in the well being of France or
Scotland.
Can't help it. I am a nationalist. I want the best for the USA and
castigating a people who already work longer hours than any other
for being "lazy" strikes me as blatant fascist nonsense.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
