Comments on: What I’m reading today

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:41:01 +0000

treesoftomorrow

Thats not free trade. Thats a wilful geopolitical policy on the part of the Americans. A fact that is illustrated by a statement made by Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculturem uner Nixon and Ford. “Hungry men listen only to those who have bread. Food is a tool. It is a weapon in the US negotiating kit.”

They wouldn’t be able to do that without um, PROTECTIONISM back home in the form of subsidies, quotas, and prices controls for the powerful agriculture lobby.

By: Kevyn

Kevyn — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:59:55 +0000

PS, New Zealand isn’t taking global warming as seriously as the Americans and Chinese so there isn’t any demand for hybrid here. That’s why they’re all exported.

By: Kevyn

Kevyn — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:57:52 +0000

So you want an example of the ills of protectionism. The US Transportation Equity Act includes a buy American clause. When the Highway Trust Fund pays for new buses they have to be American. Consequently Designline will not be tripling it’s manufacturing capacity here in Canterbury to make hybrid buses for the US. It is instead building a factory in North Carolina.

By: treesoftomorrow

treesoftomorrow — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:01:15 +0000

so the positive would be growing and producing for local demand, creating local employment and industries for local needs and demand

By: treesoftomorrow

treesoftomorrow — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:00:33 +0000

surely you must see some positives too?

for instance under free trade - a community might be making food for export, and being given aid of the same type - killing the local demand and economy for it - forcing them into exporting and cash crops.

——-

By: BluePeter

BluePeter — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:15:07 +0000

Source: tinyurl.com/42m8qa

By: BluePeter

BluePeter — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:14:26 +0000

>>whats bad with protectionism anyway?

The World Bank ound that if the cotton price was not distorted by (mainly US) subsidies, the number of people living in poverty in Burkina Faso could be halved in six years. It makes

Protectionism is based on the lie that the government can dictate where jobs go. “The assumption is that if the government tells businesses that they can’t export jobs, that those jobs will stay in the United States and they won’t be lost.

Except the fact is that for that to work, someone else has to lose their job. If a company must reduce costs, they can’t keep the same number of jobs - and in the end, those jobs that would have been imported will simply go away.

That produces even more collateral economic damage in its wake - not only have those jobs disppeared, but those who depend on the products or services created by those jobs are now out of a job as well. After protectionism is enacted, you end up losing more jobs than you would hav”

By: Kevyn

Kevyn — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:12:15 +0000

treesoftomorrow, When protectioism extends to local manufacturers or assemblers being exempted from safety and environmental regulation while importers are subjected to the rules applying in the country of manufacture then it is bad for locals. In the 1970s the Morris Minor was still being assembled here two years after it failed the UK mandatory crash test. At the same time Aussie cars had to have seatbelts for all seating positions and inertial reel belts in the front. Neither were required when those cars were assembled here. In the 80s the Commodore had key crumple bracing components omitted to keep the weight within the capabilities of the small engine, but only in this country - it was illegal in Aus.

By: treesoftomorrow

treesoftomorrow — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:24:19 +0000

whats bad with protectionism anyway?

what ever happened to think local?

By: treesoftomorrow

treesoftomorrow — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:05:44 +0000

looks like Don Elder and his buddies are writing the ETS and labours’ climate policy at the moment…