Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I still don't understand what you mean by "free trade." Just lowering or eliminating tariffs? If so, that's fine, but most other people mean other things, too.
So I'm not sure what I have acknowledged.
You seem to have misunderstood the Financial Times piece entirely. Try reading it again.
|
I understood it and I don't think you did. As I said his only gripe is about labor standards.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. Liberals and conservatives are equally capable of understanding that there are barriers to trade apart from tariffs. You don't understand that, apparently, but everyone else does.
|
Now I see the problem. You don't understand what a NTB (non-tariff trade barrier) is. Yes there are other barriers to free trade, so called non-tariff trade barriers, but that is not what the article is about and that is not what these labor and environmental provisions are about. NTBs are generally recognized as regulations that are cloaked as environmental, safety and labor protections. The Japanes are the king of these. They say they need to have barriers on rice from California because Califonria rice is not healthy for the Japanese. They banned American cars because they polluted to much even though they had higher pollution standards than Japanese cars. Inspectors holding up fruit for inspection until it rots etc. Also regulation on services is another classic NTB. Foreigners are not allowed to start an accounting firm, business consultants must be citizens, Japanese lawyers may not work for a foreign law firm etc. So yes there are other barriers to trade but environmental and labor riders are not reducing NTBs. They are actually increasing barriers.
If we won't trade with CAFTA because they don't have the right labor standards, that is an NTB. Not the other way around. You have got it backwards. Free trade is about reducing barriers and these riders increase the barriers. We will not buy your products because you damage the environment- that is increasing trade barriers not reducing it.
You may agree with these policies but they increase barriers. If California stopped accepting products from Alabama because they had a lower minimum wage (which they do), less safety regulations (which they do), and less environmental regulations, that would be considered a trade barrier. Not a reduction in trade barriersl.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You still don't know what the treaty actually says, do you?
|
I haven't read the whole treaty. It is very thick but I have read some summaries. The main thing is it reduces tariffs. It reduces some NTBs. Yes the enviromental and labor standards increase trade barriers but the benefits out weigh the costs.
