Some people suggest, however, that it makes sense to isolate the moral effects of a single new trading opportunity or free trade agreement. Surely we have fellow citizens who are hurt by those agreements, at least in the limited sense that they?d be better off in a world where trade flourishes, except in this one instance. What do we owe those fellow citizens? One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald?s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives. [...] Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you?re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you?re being extorted. When a free trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation ? even if Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and the rest of the presidential candidates don?t want you to. |
Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you?re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you?re being extorted. When a free trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation ? even if Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and the rest of the presidential candidates don?t want you to.
What if you're buying a product that was made by a child in a country that has no labor protections? Do you still "rejoice in your liberation?"
What if you're buying a product from a company that runs factories in a country that are extremely unsafe for the employees? Does one still "rejoice in their liberation?"
Saving money is fine, but is exploiting workers in another country?
So your final answer is that if you are not allowed to buy something made by children working in a very dangerous factory, YOU are the exploited one?
I mean, you won;t be told that it was made by children. The owner of the factory will assure you that it is safe. You won't see the children injured, or hear them scream when they get caught in a machine or are doomed to a life of wheezing because of working with dangerous toxic chemicals?
So you will pay maybe 30% less and won't feel exploited. As you pass the unemployed fellow American who could have made the product begging or selling bottled water on the street, you can tell him to get a job.
But will they improve with the jobs there?
That was an excellent post and for the most part I agree.
I tend to favor a world with less borders as well.
We've got to help these countries establish a decent framework.
As it stands these companies go in and pretty much write their own rules, or have them written for them by the WTO, World Bank, or IMF. That doesn't help the country or the people, it doesn't build anything lasting. I tend to agree that entrepreneurs and possibly cooperatives would benefit the people much more in the long-term.