Ollie Garchy
Active member
loki said:I admit this [trade barriers] sounds tempting. But I doubt it can be implemented. The west has been preaching liberalization of trade for years. And the only parties that might propagate something as "backwards" as that are on the far left and I don't like the other things they offer. I guess so do you, especially concerning foreign policy.
Hi Loki,
Western states use sanctions or trade barriers for a variety of reasons. Normal power politics, for example, influences the flow of armaments to China, Iran and other countries. International agreements (like Wassenaar) theoretically inhibit western states from sending a wide range of finished military goods to the Developing World. If we in the west actually want to limit the damage brought by our military systems, why not adopt a similar policy for environmental and humanitarian reasons?
Yes, our economists and elite generally preach "trade liberalism". I actually agree. Trade (not just in theory) leads to wealth and a general improvement regarding the general quality of life. Look at Europe between 1947-1970. What a boom period! The leftist and nationalist extremists in our societies are therefore quite wrong.
I nevertheless think that a Wassenaar-style system should control regular trade until we can ensure relatively sane industrial policies in China or India. Here is an example. It does not make any sense to eliminate national steel capacities by purchasing Indian substitutes. A poor labour policy and basically no environmental laws keep prices low. Not only does this policy constitute unfair competition, for both our citizens and those of the Developing World, but it could lead to a massive shift in the industrial power balance.
After WWII, the Allies met in Berlin to plan the industrial castration of Germany. The victorious powers understood that dual-use capacities ultimately meant real military power. While the original conceptions died in planning, owing to the massive economic crisis facing European society, the Germans and French got together and instituted the Coal and Steel Union--a control mechanism that permitted both states to protect domestic steel-making and thereby avert the trade wars that had led to regional friction and ultimately massive and destabilizing German dominance.
Why not use these systems today? They worked in the past. How about a "Global Industrial Union" that forces the Developing World (ie. China and India) to import greater quantities of goods produced in America and Europe? The Germans in 1950 decided to adopt the Coal and Steel Union even though it theoretically lowered potential output and lessened the chances for dominance. Unbridled capitalism can be a really bad thing. [If we already have these types of systems, please offer a few links...I am not an economist...anyway, I still say "screw the Austrian School"]
Last edited: