Comments on: No trade policies please http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/04/11/no-trade-policies-please/ Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:23:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Alan K. Henderson http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/04/11/no-trade-policies-please/#comment-3176 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/04/11/no-trade-policies-please/#comment-3176 See also this article on a report that contrasts free trade and managed trade: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/001180.php The report (PDF file linked in the article) specifically mentions India as an example of how not to do trade policy. Trade policy should be set by the people doing the trading, not by their governments. See also this article on a report that contrasts free trade and managed trade:

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/001180.php

The report (PDF file linked in the article) specifically mentions India as an example of how not to do trade policy.

Trade policy should be set by the people doing the trading, not by their governments.

]]> by: sauvik chakraverti http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/04/11/no-trade-policies-please/#comment-3177 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/04/11/no-trade-policies-please/#comment-3177 it must be understood that diplomacy is based on RECIPROCITY but trade is not. for example, i run a bar that sells non-veg food. next door to me is the MASTER TAILOR who is a vegetarian teetotaller. for the last 20 years that i have known him, he has never paid me any custom. should i not get my new suit stitched from him? or should i go to the DRUNKEN tailor, the last to leave my bar every night, whose hands shake like hell? trade is between INDIVIDUALS: it is MORAL, it is JUST, it is VOLUNTARY and it is MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL. since it occurs all the time, "CONTINUOUS COMPETITION", reciprocity is meaningless. that is why we don't need the WTO; we need UNILATERAL FREE TRADE. frederic bastiat was the only economist in history, before me, to destroy the concept of RECIPROCITY in matters related to trade. if we allow ministers and diplomats to handle foreign trade, we can say goodbye to prosperity: enjoying chilean red wine with french cheese. for example, france does not allow in alfonso mangoes. should we not eat french cheese? it must be understood that diplomacy is based on RECIPROCITY but trade is not. for example, i run a bar that sells non-veg food. next door to me is the MASTER TAILOR who is a vegetarian teetotaller. for the last 20 years that i have known him, he has never paid me any custom. should i not get my new suit stitched from him? or should i go to the DRUNKEN tailor, the last to leave my bar every night, whose hands shake like hell? trade is between INDIVIDUALS: it is MORAL, it is JUST, it is VOLUNTARY and it is MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL. since it occurs all the time, “CONTINUOUS COMPETITION”, reciprocity is meaningless. that is why we don’t need the WTO; we need UNILATERAL FREE TRADE.
frederic bastiat was the only economist in history, before me, to destroy the concept of RECIPROCITY in matters related to trade. if we allow ministers and diplomats to handle foreign trade, we can say goodbye to prosperity: enjoying chilean red wine with french cheese. for example, france does not allow in alfonso mangoes. should we not eat french cheese?

]]> by: Kiran http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/04/11/no-trade-policies-please/#comment-3178 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/04/11/no-trade-policies-please/#comment-3178 The suggestion here is that the Government must get out of trade altogether, or practice the much misused term - <i>laissez-fairre</i>. That would work in a different world. Trade has risen in importance in the world to a level where it is linked to national security. If Kuwait did not have something important to sell to the US, the US would not have shed blood for it. Europe, Japan and East Asia were built up economically as a conscious political decision on the parts of their Govts as well as the US. They realized that economic development via trade was imperative for building up these nations - for ensuring their security. The suggestion here is that the Government must get out of trade altogether, or practice the much misused term - laissez-fairre. That would work in a different world. Trade has risen in importance in the world to a level where it is linked to national security. If Kuwait did not have something important to sell to the US, the US would not have shed blood for it. Europe, Japan and East Asia were built up economically as a conscious political decision on the parts of their Govts as well as the US. They realized that economic development via trade was imperative for building up these nations - for ensuring their security.

]]>