From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:26:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX


In article <1992Apr9.074307.3313@leland.Stanford.EDU> whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Shepherd) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.130655.28253@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.192630.1261@leland.Stanford.EDU> whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Shepherd) writes:
>
>[My earlier argument making the case that free trade may not _necessarily_
>be to our best interests deleted...]
>>
>>   While I believe you are correct in theory that the economic principle is
>>that overall efficiency will be increased, I believe that you are incorrect
>>to say that one of the regions will be made worse off by the agreement.
>>
>I've since checked with some experts on the issue.  It was my understanding
>that economics held a unified view on the subject (as presented in one of
>my classes).  It turns out that there are currently two countervailing
>views on the subject within the economics community.  In any case, I
>stand by my assertion that it is not necessarily irrational to argue
>against free trade.  (See soc.economics for a more learned discussion of
>the same issue.)
>

   Apparently my letter to you didn't make it before you could post.
You mistated my position when you posted to sci.econ.  Also if you
think posting to sci.econ is "checking with experts", you haven't
been reading it for as long as I have. :-)

  You seem to be a bright person who is just a little skepitical, so I'll
keep this short, since I'm not sure we are disagreeing.


  What you essentially proposed is that the Hecksher-Ohlin model is the 
measure of free trade and that labor may loose out.   This is, of course,
debatable.  But I was not trying to state that free trade would always
(theoretically) work out to the benefit of both regions.  As I said in
my letter to you, I might be willing to argue that point at a later date
for fun, but right now I'd just as soon keep this simple.

  It seems to me this your dispute is:  "Can free trade _ever_ end up
with one region being worse off."  As I said, I don't think we have a 
disagreement there.  I am, for now, perfectly willing to concede you that
point.

  I _did_ say that I believe a free trade agreement with Mexico would
be beneficial to both parties and have given a partial rendering of
my viewpoints. Others brought in the Smoot-Hawley tariff and GATT.
1)  Inclusive in my viewpoints was that India, Bangledesh, China,
Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, Mexico, the Philippines, Morocco, Argentina,
Yugoslavia, and Hungary round out the top 12 tariff countries as of 1985.
Not countries will overwhelming economies. (Not proof, but the list
goes further and I believe Australia's tariff passing fad would also
pose a pretty good example of how not to get an economy rolling.)
  I'm most familiar with Argentina (having had an economics professor from
there).  Their auto tariffs in 1986(?)  made the price of a automobile
ludicrously expensive and unaffordable (as well as low quality).  The government
wasted a great deal of money on an inefficient policy.
2) I brought up the example of distribution jobs that would arise as
a result of free trade with Mexico.  This, by no means, is the limit
of the job growth.  You seem familiar with basic economics so I'll spare
you the sermon on how it would cause the economies to become more
efficient resulting in growing economies (and jobs) for both sides.
3)  I mentioned that jobs that make US firms globally uncompetive are going
to leave the US anyway (to our competitors if no one else).  I don't see
how an uncompetitive firm can "capture global market share" as you suggest.
4)  Certainly the effects of Smoot-Hawley tariff and Gatt are excellent
examples of the effects of tariffs.
5)  I would say Japan's costly agricultural policy is a good example of
of the bad effects of tariffs.  (Though I have more info on this if wanted.
Japan (in the last decade) become the largest single buyer of US farm
products.  This often goes unnoticed in many debates I witness.)  
6) It is also my understanding, though not my area of expertise, that Japan
has succesfully offloaded many of its "cheap labor" jobs to developing
Asian countries resulting in increased "high paying" jobs for Japan.
7)  The toughest thing for some people (not you) to remember is that
it is not a zero sum game.  Both countries can prosper under free trade.
8)  I may have mentioned some other things I don't recall at this point.


   I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me.  If you are, let's start
over (in a sense).  You tell me why you believe a free trade agreement
would not be beneficial to the US and I'll give you my reasoning.

  You seem a bright person, and I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with you.
If you could be more specific in what it is you would like to debate, I'm
more than willing( as long as my current overly prolific trend can hold.)

Pat
  

  
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us