Free Trade Is Superior to Protectionism

Firstly, I would ask that you refrain from using such brazenly partisan sources as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation to support anything other than your opinion (as opposed to facts). Both are largely policy mics for corporate interests and neoconservative political pundits rather than empirical sources of evidence and have been know to distort statistical information on issues regarding welfare, global warming, and tobacco related illnesses (The stated message of the Heritage Foundation being to "formulate and promote conservativepublic policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense" and Charles Koch [petroleum magnate] being one of the founders of the Cato Institute). Secondly I would again ask if there are any books or essays that have helped you shape your opinions on trade policy so I can get a better idea of where you are coming from. Thank you. My thesis: Globalization has been the leading perpetuator of famine, environmental erosion, poverty, and human rights violations globally. First: Brief History of Trade Policy Amongst the Developed World I do not see the value in debating the merits of protectionism versus free trade in America as free trade has been a runaway success for us since it was implemented following WWII. The reason it was so successful? Over a hundred years of protectionist policy which allowed northern industry to develop to the point where it was competitive both domestically and internationally. Britain was far superior to us in manufacturing until well into the 19th century and was dominating the market for such goods here in the US during the colonial era. Prior to the American revolution, England actually made illegal the domestic production of goods that needed to be manufactured because they knew that once America had a self sustaining industrial economy, they would be significantly less dependent on English exports. This also came with the strict enforcement of anti-smuggling which undermined British trade. The US has historically had high tariffs in relation to other like (western) nations that have averaged well above 20-30% in some decades [1]. Another reason the US was able to develop their industrial capabilities was their complete disregard for international copyright and patent laws, something they now fervently uphold in the developing world when it comes to protecting the drug and agricultural industries’ (more accurately cartels’) patents. This sort of economic policy was very characteristic of the now predominant industrial powers in Europe as well. What I will debate with great fervor is the fact that globalization has been the leading perpetuator of famine, environmental erosion, poverty, and human rights violations globally. Since WWII, the US has “kicked away the latter” to quote Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang. The very policies of protectionism that helped build up the US’ once infant economy, was now being unilaterally prohibited in countries with lesser developed economies. The effect of liberalizing trade globally is reflected in several disturbing trends: The Decline of Subsistence Agriculture and the rise of Agribusiness Lowering import tariffs has allowed multimillion dollar corporations to landgrab large agricultural areas and has brought up a little concern called “food security” in many regions that have plentiful and fertile land that has the potential to sustain the population and export to the global market [2]. Unfortunately, with the primary land owners being unaccountable corporations, the emphasis is more on the latter, with production geared exclusively to cash crops for export. With no labor or trade regulations, these ‘businesses’ can pay their workers next to nothing while charging extreme markups to consumers like us for commodities like fruits, cocoa, and coffee. Since the population cannot live off these cash crops, nor can they afford the expensive imported foreign food on their meager salary, many of them must choose between feeding themselves or their child or an elderly parent (because remember there is no social security with austerity, but more on that later). So when really the difference between global famine and global prosperity comes down to marginal corporate profits, why can’t the government do something to curb this disaster? Because the one thing on the mind of a politician in the 3rd world is debt debt debt debt. The Obscene rise of Fruitless Debt in already Poor Nations Consider the hundred million dollar hydroelectric power plant built in the Congo for a rural population consisting largely of farmers and peasants living in mud homes. They did not benefit from this, only the American firm who got the contract to build the plant did. Why did the dumbass govment do that? Well because the dictator of that government, Mobutu [3] (the son of a Belgian judge), owes the US and Belgium big time for ousting the democratically elected prime minister (wouldn’t be the first time) Patrice Lumumba who supported nationalizing the economy and raising money through tariffs to support the very destitute population of the Congo. Mobutu had one of the worst human rights records and most documented examples of flagrant corruption in Africa, yet was simultaneously the third largest recipient of US aid (largely due to it’s anti-communist stance)… [3] On another note: Cuba has a nationalized economy and currently has 80,000 doctors working abroad yet has had non-existing diplomatic relations with America for decades. Anyways this effect of these de facto subsidies to US industry is a policy of austerity, a condition many banks such as the IMF and World Bank make conditional to their development loans. As much as 30% of a country’s budget may in some cases go straight to paying down the national debt [5]. This crisis–known as the third world debt crisis–got so embarrassing the G8 actually cancelled several billion dollars in African debt that was largely just interest. Thats several billions of dollars that could be spent on healthcare, education, infrastructure, in a place that needed it most, yet what the bankers and politicians care most about is honoring debts and continuing the flight of capital from the producer nations to the consumer nations like us [7]. In the arguments that follow I will go into the numerous cold war conflicts the US has aggressed or supported in order to maintain it’s economic hegemony. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.globalpolicy.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...