another possible letter to the editor of my school's paper v.2

[TheScatman]

her article then my draft



INS trumps ECO in explaining free trade

by xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx



Why is it that people use basic concepts of microeconomics to counter "vague notions?" How completely ironic is that?

When I was a freshman, I used to talk to business majors on my hall about the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit, and they were always very condescending - they'd say things like "I can't have this discussion with you, you don't understand - and you won't until you take Economics 211 and 212." As if basic supply and demand and trade were too esoteric to be able to explain. I went into microeconomics already having learned about "free" trade (and neoliberalism, and Statutory Accounting Principles, etc.). I already understood that people don't usually do what's in everyone's best interests: graphs never trump self-interest, and power is a huge factor in economic relationships - and I had major trouble getting past my doubts/realism.

It's possible that my doubts stem from things my teacher said, such as, "Land, or natural resources, are those resources we obtain by the grace of God" or "Marginal, fixed, and variable costs, or as I like to call them, The Trinity." I swear I am not making this up.

I will always remember my textbook's justification of "free trade" - a dialogue between a farmer and a rancher. It included gem quotes such as "farmer, my friend, have I got a deal for you!" and "I don't know that sounds too good to be true," then "Oh, but it is! Here - I've summarized my proposal for you in a simple table."

Hopefully I'm not breaking the honor code at all here, but let me let all of you microeconomics students in on a little secret. About 90 percent of the time when they ask you for a graph, what you do is you draw an 'X' on a graph. Label one line "supply" and label the other one "demand." Put "price" on the x-axis, then "amount" or whatever on the y-axis - and if there is government involvement, just scrawl, "Oh God, not that!" across the whole graph. You're set - that's pretty much the point.

Anyway, I've finally found a division of economics that makes sense: International Political Economy. It takes into account, for instance, how relationships of power affect economic decisions - while one point on the graph may be better for both parties, if I'm more powerful than you and we're making a deal (such as free trade agreements), you're going to agree to my terms (no subsidies except for agriculture subsidies - which is the only market third world countries would have an advantage in anyway). Or on a smaller scale, it explains why UNICCO employees signed waivers they didn't understand. It also explains why collective bargaining is so important - it helps equalize relationships of power in the workplace, so that employees have the leverage to get fair compensation and decent working conditions.

So all of you who have taken ECO 211 and/or 212 and think you therefore have all the answers, and that we "progressives" are so naive for thinking that people's lives shouldn't be determined by two-dimensional economic oversimplifications: take International Political Economy (INS 537) and get back to me.

My possible Response

Bashing free markets, whether within a country or internationally seems in vogue now. The latest enemy? Free trade. In her article “INS trumps ECO in explaining free trade” xxxxxx xxxxxx lashes out against NAFTA and other free-trade agreements as being unfair to third world countries. This may be true in some circumstances. However her key mistake is in confusing NAFTA, CAFTA and other agreements of the sort with actual free trade.


As Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) points out, “Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods”. You don’t need an international agreement hundreds of pages long to allow free trade. All the United States government needs to do is “is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade”. Crafting government managed free trade agreements only allows corporations and other NGO’s to lobby to fine tune “free trade” agreement to their own benefit. True free trade benefits both countries via comparative advantage, as Mrs. xxxxxx notes at “one point on the graph may be better for both parties”. Without managed “free trade” no country can over power another as trade will only occur when both entities (whether they are corporations or individuals) mutually benefit. Otherwise why would they trade?



So if free trade occurs naturally without government intervention, how would opponents of it stop it? A War on Free Trade? Imprision and fine those who trade voluntarily across international borders? I fail to see how measures such as tariffs or other trade restrictions that restrict citizens’ economic liberty are fit for a free society.


Mrs. xxxxxx is right when she says that NAFTA and other government managed agreements like it are not the answer. However I disagree with her conclusion that free trade is an inherent evil. If you take away restrictions the government places on trade across international boundaries, people will trade when it benefits them, and only then. Now that’s fair trade.

[TheScatman]

suggested length is 300 words but i want to extend that to talk about mroe beefits of free trade

[kinggovernor]

great job, on a side note it appears the phrase "fair trade" in coming into vogue these days. What a dumb fucking idea

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

great job, on a side note it appears the phrase "fair trade" in coming into vogue these days. What a dumb fucking idea

yea why I figured I'd use it

I think I need to get a job writing editorials so I dont always have to respond bitching and I can lay out my own ideas

[thomez]

you should blog

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by thomez

you should blog

think so? i've really started liking writing just recently, i want to start on the side

[motivez]

Unrelated, but we're pretty sure we're going to start offering blog space on the site here

Nice response otherwise. I think you should probably expand a tad on the anti-dumping thing, because it's an easy point to latch on for anyone who wants to criticize your response.

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by motivez

Unrelated, but we're pretty sure we're going to start offering blog space on the site here

Nice response otherwise. I think you should probably expand a tad on the anti-dumping thing, because it's an easy point to latch on for anyone who wants to criticize your response.

to the blog space, that could get addicting

do you think people can really criticize allowing "dumping". The firm is basically trying to maximize the money it gets from each transaction. I dont neccessarily see whats wrong with selling a good for one price in one market and a different in another. Although admittedly I dont know much about the arguments for banning dumping