Cancun Trade Talks

The main argument for globalization is that Mars is far off and uninhabitated.

Globalization is free trade after the French have gotten their hands on the process.

I mean, whose idea was the WTO? Who staffs it?

It's a very European organization (bureacratic), and the way that it is advancing free trade is VERY European (multilateral negotiations).

Meanwhile, the US just keeps chugging along. We just got a bilateral agreement with Chile, for example.

I think the story linked by Marginal Revolution sums up "Globalization."

I actually try to use the terms free-trade or free-markets instead of loaded word like 'Globalization' (same reason I refrain from using 'capitalism,' 'socialism,' or 'liberal' they've been distorted to where you have to define them when discussing them).

What the WTO really promotes is managed trade. It adds an unnecessary level of complexity (via bureaucracy) to the market exchange process.

As far as protestors go (I know several of them, having just graduated college and being involved in various student political organizations), some have legitimate gripes. I knew a few that were anti-IMF and anti-World Bank, and had points that I agree with. However, many are also anti-free-trade because of misconceptions regarding specialization, how wealth grows, how trade benefits everyone -- basically econ 101.

A couple other gripes some protestors I knew had and agreed with, was how various "faceless" multinational corporations benefited at the expense of others (namely domestic companies) through subsidies, taxes, "IP" and other schemes.

Of course, if you get rid of the State, not only would you gain friendlier tax brackets (zero sounds good), but "multinational" corporations would no longer be able to hide behind and gain from what Frederic Bastiat lucidly wrote about: legal plunder, aka the law.

Globalization and free trade are essentially one and the same thing. Free trade will most likely improve everything in the long run. Unfortunately, between then and now---a large number of poor people will lose their jobs and endure severe financial hardships. The costs of creative destruction are often high. Is their a magic answer to this dilemma? Nope, it’s usually a matter of biting the bullet and hoping the resulting pain is of a very short duration. The following article amply illustrates my point:

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/publication/rg/RGRich.shtml

Globalisation and free trade are not-quite-opposites. Globalisation is managed trade. Sure, lower tariffs are better than higher tariffs, but any tariff or non-tariff barrier with its attendant regulations and administrative requirements favours large companies and multinationals at the expense of smaller businesses. It is the way the world is moving. A successful lawsuit seeking compensation for spilt scalding coffee would wipe out a small cafe; to McDonalds it means a tiny blip in their profits. The rules regulating trade have the same effect. I leave it open to discussion whether it's a a good or bad thing.

Arnold,

I'm sure that after Cancun a lot of people will ask: "Is all this agony really getting us anywhere?". Many of those who will be the most bitter are those, who, like me are the most frustrated by what is happening.

I think the Andrew Rose research paper is off the mark. I'll try to say why when I get back from the Cancun meeting.

Best wishes,

Peter