Re: International trade?

Sorry if I spoke rather spoke rather strongly, but many of the arguments
here do not bear up to careful analysis.

If I might examine them individually:

Ron Georg wrote:
>Bioregionalism is not protectionism. It is an effort to recognize that
>we can get much of what we need without paving the world.

I agree.

>And if you really believe free trade is offering third-world nations a
>leg up, take a look at the American factories springing up on the
>Mexican side of the Texas border since the North American Free Trade
>Agreement.

In general, no sovereign country has the right to impose it's own values on
another sovereign country. That is basic to the concept of statehood.[1]
Borders merely focus the attention on the differences. But if these
factories were in the suburbs of Mexico City, it would not draw the same
attention. Ultimately US manufactures will do the people of Mexico more
good by allowing them to work to local standards and wages, than by not
allowing them to work at all.

Ross wrote:
>Take a look at the environment of some of the other countries where many of
>there unnecessary goods are made.

Would you rather the people there staved to death? Or lived off US
foreign-aid handouts?

>Wealth brings conveniant environmental activism. Its not convenient to stop
>burning fossil fuels;

Germany has one of the biggest renewable energy programs in the world. I
pay a surcharge on my electricty bill to fund it, and I am happy to do so.
When fossil fuels run out, renewable energy will fill the gap.

>its not convenient to stop importing non-organic food .Its not convenient
>to clean up the factories in 3rd world.

You cannot force people in other countries to work to your own arbitrary
standards. In 100 years time, our own standards of today will look
disgraceful. Everyone moves at their own pace. What is important is that we
are all moving.

John

--
mailto:jneale@...
http://www.webshowcase.net/johnneale