Comments on: Free Trade, Unilateral

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:47:00 +0000

I endorse unilateral free trade. But governments are greedy creatures, attuned much more to helping domestic special-interest groups than to helping the public. So governments naturally tend to respond to producer interests (because producers are, generally speaking, much more concentrated and politically well-organized than are consumers).

So as a practical matter, trade agreements are a means lowering tariffs. The typical stated reason a government gives for signing a trade agreement – that the agreement will increase exports — is both true and wrong. True, because exports likely WILL increase the freer is trade; wrong because exports are a COST of trade, not a benefit.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:24:00 +0000

Mr. Boudreaux does not want any government interference in trade apparently. Fine, then why do we even have trade agreements? Trade agreements are supposed to deal with countervailing tariffs, exchange of currencies, non-tariff barriers such as certification standards and import fees, piracy of intellectual property, etc. Let’s drop the charade that trade with China is going to abide with the intent of an agreement and let individuals negociate personally to buy their anvils and car parts. I don’t think that will work and that we need a basic framework where governments negociate marketplace underpinnings for the ready exchange of goods, services, raw materials, intellectual property, investment securities and agricultual products. This framework is one-sided at the present and receding and thus the impeutus for my remarks.

I thank you very much for hosting this forum and allowing for a civil exchange of ideas and arguments.

By: MikeP

MikeP — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:53:00 +0000

In case it isn’t obvious, the investment surplus is another name for the trade deficit.

And, yes, a fair amount of that investment surplus is in the financial vehicles that are small and green and have presidents faces in the middle of them. China sends the US actual goods that US consumers actually want and actually use. The US sends China little green pieces of paper.

Thinking that its the little green pieces of paper are the goal is pretty much the definition of mercantilism. But those pieces of paper are useless until they are used to (a) buy something from the US, (b) invest in the US, or (c) trade with someone who will do (a) or (b).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:27:00 +0000

Seekingexports doesn’t want Americans to “blindly trade with any country.”

I emphatically oppose blindly trading with anyone. Each American should trade as he or she judges best for himself, herself, and his or her family or firm. And to do that, each American who trade — be it with a non-American or with another American — would be wise to keep his or her eyes open.

But I do oppose any and all restrictions imposed by government on trade.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:26:00 +0000

Seekingexports doesn’t want Americans to “blindly trade with any country.”

But I do oppose any and all restrictions imposed by government on trade.