From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 15:46:37 MDT
Emlyn quoted:
>>>> PS. In case it is not clear, I used a bit of hyperbole to drive
>>>> home the point that protectionism, aside from being harmful for
>>>> the US economy, is in the end a form of crude, selfish and
>>>> inconsiderate short-term greed, depriving others of chances for
>>>> significantly improving their lives, and impoverishing all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Inane corporate drivel. It's agreed that if a company makes money
>>> in one country they should abide by the rules of that country. Just
>>> because you can purchase slave-labour in burma doesn't mean that all
>>> people should allow themselves to be enslaved. Supporting
>>> slave-labour or poverty-labour in other countries is extremely
>>> inhumane and our government inasmuch as it has any purpose at all,
>>> should be simply to make sure that our people do not become
>>> enslaved or nearly-enslaved.
>>>
>> ### Inane commie drivel.
>>
>> Rafal
>
> Actually, I think this is hinting at a point which others have made
> about the global free economy, or Globalization if you want to use a
> capital letter.
>
> There is a glaring hole in "free trade", which is that goods and
> money can move freely, but labour can't. That's ok if you are a
> consumer of labour, you just move to where it is cheapest. In fact
> you get some extremely cheap labour, subsidized in a weird indirect
> way by the artifical partitioning of national borders. However, as a
> supplier of labour, you are very clearly disadvantaged by your
> inability, in most important cases, to move to the economic
> conditions that best suit your labour supply business (ie: that best
> suit your life generally).
>
> I'm quite impressed by the theory of global free trade, but in
> practice the restriction on relocation of individuals makes the
> market extremely inequitable for the suppliers of labour (most people
> in the world), and thus, I think, very damaging to most people.
### There was a time that I opposed immigration (imagine, me, an immigrant,
opposing immigration). After thinking about the issue for a long time, I
came recently to a conclusion quite similar to yours - it is wrong to limit
the mobility of labor by arbitrary rules at state boundaries. I still think
that limitations related to enforcement of personal liability insurance, or
exclusion of security risks, are acceptable, but otherwise states should
have no right to limit movement of people or their employment.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 12 2003 - 12:54:44 MDT