From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 19:43:44 GMT

In article <thompson.721675299@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>Schumacher doesn't address international trade explicitly. However, I
>>suspect that if he were alive today, he'd argue something like this:
>>there's nothing wrong with such trade, but having an the economy of a
>>given political (and by your own claim, *cultural*) entity dependent
>>on exporting things to other such entities that it does not control or
>>even necessarily share much with is a mistake. If we can't build
>>stable, healthy economies within the confines of a national boundary(*),
>>what makes us think we can do it within the confines of the entire
>>planet ?
>
>This argument completely ignores the _mutual_ nature of gains from
>trade.  Of course trade produces dependency.  So what?  So do all
>other mutually beneficial human activities.  Why make artificial
>distinctions between dependencies that cross lines on a map and ones
>that don't?

I'm not ignoring the mutual benefits of trade, merely noting that if
you have a good economy without it, you can probably have a great one
with it.

As for the lines: since economics is a human affair, rich in cultural
overtones and influences, I see it as quite appropriate for it to
respect other cultural boundaries. That doesn't mean it *has* to, but
I'd put the presumption on the boundary-crossers to show the benefit
of their particular activity. Many of them have a great case, BTW.

>Taking your argument to its logical extreme, California should stop
>exporting food to the rest of the country.  

I argue on other newsgroups that enhanced bioregionalism when it comes
to food production would be a good thing. This doesn't mean no
Californian produce at all, but it does mean balancing up the
dependency and ecological costs with the benefits.
					     
					     And none of you would get
>any of those heart pace-makers that are manufactured here in
>Minneapolis.  Texas should keep whatever oil it has left for itself.
>And I should stop teaching, go home, and work in my garden.  My wife
>should quit her job at the local public hospital and concentrate on
>keeping our family well instead.

If you could combine all these things with some trade and
interdependency, then I'd say, yes. I'm not suggesting that complete
self-sufficiency is a good goal, merely that less dependency is better.

>I would be very surprised if Schumacher would oppose exports of
>equipment enabling renewable energy sources, advances in health care,
>sustainable agriculture, etc.  Nor would he oppose imports of
>rain-forest products.
>
>I have not read the book, but I do not see any conflicts between
>sustainable economic systems and trade.  I doubt if the former will
>every be achieved without the latter.

Agreed, there are no conflicts. That doesn't mean that sustainable
economic systems don't have a significantly differently balance
between the two.

I'm dismayed that someone in an Dept. of Econ has not read Schumacher.
Its not rigorous theory; it is insightful practice, even if its
wrong. To study economics and not encounter this point of view is like
studying computers and never thinking about parallelism.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin