sexta-feira, 14 de maio de 2010
TEc's debate motion "Is fair trade more important than free trade?" - a final comment as the motion is carried 55 to 45
I am glad that the motion was carried by a difference large enough to get noticed.
The arguments for free trade are many and were once upon a time much more pressing than today.
The best evidence to this is found looking at the shelves of department stores and supermarkets around the world.Or the vehicles on the roads or hardwares, electric and electronic gadgets, etc.
Global trade flows were never as intense in both volume and value as in 2007/8 before the US-led financial meltdown.
No single country, however, made greater inroads just about everywhere than China.
When competing economies differ so much in overall cost structures - ranging from pay to safety standards to environmental controls - the case MUST be made which way entire societies are headed to.
Unless of course we should all be happy to buy from China from pins and needles to printers and eventually aircraft.
They don't do the latter large scale yet but could very well at a lower price than the likes of Boeing and Airbus.
What about other costs that never got factored in?
One example that should compel many to figure out what the consequences and implications would be. Especially if industry - or entire industrial sectors - were completely wiped out from the traditional industrial nations of the world.
Which is exactly what would follow over not many years of all-out free trade to full effect.
A definition of fair trade is hard to get because decades were spent pushing relentlessly for free trade.
Some may argue there is no such thing as fair trade.
They have a point.
Nevertheless, a balance of some sort between trading partners is to my mind essential to the very definition and notion of free trade.
Trade presupposes a two-way flow.
It is nearly as if fair trade should be made intrinsic to free trade.
But how to achieve that?
That's exactly the ongoing challenge from clearly understood simple concepts.
If employment, wealth creation, production, social balance, safety and environmental protection standards should all be deemed relevant in societies.
Everywhere.
If not, free-for-all would be a better fitting definition to free trade.
The arguments for free trade are many and were once upon a time much more pressing than today.
The best evidence to this is found looking at the shelves of department stores and supermarkets around the world.Or the vehicles on the roads or hardwares, electric and electronic gadgets, etc.
Global trade flows were never as intense in both volume and value as in 2007/8 before the US-led financial meltdown.
No single country, however, made greater inroads just about everywhere than China.
When competing economies differ so much in overall cost structures - ranging from pay to safety standards to environmental controls - the case MUST be made which way entire societies are headed to.
Unless of course we should all be happy to buy from China from pins and needles to printers and eventually aircraft.
They don't do the latter large scale yet but could very well at a lower price than the likes of Boeing and Airbus.
What about other costs that never got factored in?
One example that should compel many to figure out what the consequences and implications would be. Especially if industry - or entire industrial sectors - were completely wiped out from the traditional industrial nations of the world.
Which is exactly what would follow over not many years of all-out free trade to full effect.
A definition of fair trade is hard to get because decades were spent pushing relentlessly for free trade.
Some may argue there is no such thing as fair trade.
They have a point.
Nevertheless, a balance of some sort between trading partners is to my mind essential to the very definition and notion of free trade.
Trade presupposes a two-way flow.
It is nearly as if fair trade should be made intrinsic to free trade.
But how to achieve that?
That's exactly the ongoing challenge from clearly understood simple concepts.
If employment, wealth creation, production, social balance, safety and environmental protection standards should all be deemed relevant in societies.
Everywhere.
If not, free-for-all would be a better fitting definition to free trade.
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário