Free Trade is the second best policy for the poor and deprived of this
world (The first is meaningful land reform.)
Let's pretend for the moment that the hearts of the WTO are pure, that
they are Free Traders. They are faced with monopolists in every country who
have no intention of surrendering the special privileges that burden the rest
of the population. If the WTO try to end the special privilege, they are
accused of "interfering with internal affairs of the country".
However, if the country is weak, perhaps they can force reform on them. With a
country like the US, or a group like the Eurocrats, the WTO has not much of a
chance of cutting into the privilege that abounds.
I should make the point that "privilege" to a Georgist is
private law (privi lege) the intention of which is to give benefits to one at
the expense of others. Privilege is the exact opposite of justice, which
implies laws that affect everyone equally.
These privileges can be huge. The US has less than 11,000 sugar-beet
growers in the north-east. They are protected by the Sugar Quota. This means
that the rest of the 270 million US citizens pay from 2 to 3 times the world
price of sugar. Every soft drink buyer pays through nose for his soft drink
which is essentially sugar and water and little else. My great-grandchildren
arrived for Christmas. For breakfast they ate an awful substance called Captain
Crunch. In a 27 gram helping there were 12 grams of sugar. The poor not only
ruin their nutrition -- they ruin their wallet too. Sugar is in practically
everything that we eat - including chocolate. There has been a movement of
chocolate manufacturers across the border to Canada (taking their jobs with
them) where sugar doesn't cost so much.
Many manufacturers are turning to corn syrup which is expensive -- but compares
with the artificially price enhanced sugar. A mass of expensive commercial ads
hit television pointing to the great bargain that was sugar. This is
particularly delicious, but the commercials were paid for by the corn syrup
manufacturers who wanted the high price of sugar to continue - and thus fill
their pockets.
When South American sugar producers complained they weren't allowed to
sell their sugar and were going broke, the US sent free food (agricultural
subsidy privilege). This ruined other farmers who couldn't compete with free
food.
I suppose they turned to coca which seemed to get across the border more
easily than sugar. Should the WTO end the Sugar Quota? Yes! Can they do it? Not
a chance. Yet, this just one of the 8,500 tariffs and quotas that protect the
American consumer from cheaper food, clothing and other good things. Then, of
course, the WTO is labelled "anti-union". About 85% of American
workers are not in a union. The ones that are oppose Free Trade.
If General Motors gets a tariff that allows them to add $500 to the cost
of a vehicle, one might expect the unions to oppose it, for that extra cost
takes food out of the mouths of kids. (Even families that take public transport
often have cars and in any event their food is carried by trucks to the
stores.) So, do they oppose the tariff? Not at all -- as we saw in the
"Battle in Seattle". What the auto unions get is a cut of GM's
privilege. GM, without doubt, are happy to share it -- particularly if the
unions can get the connivance of the Democrats in supporting higher prices for
the poor -- who of course mostly vote Democrat. (The Republicans will do
precisely the same thing. Perhaps they are actually less hypocritical, because
the poor are not supposed to support them anyway.)
In their attempts to free trade, the WTO runs into some peculiar
environmental laws, which may contain complexities that harm people -- even
though they may conserve forests and suchlike. It may want to amend or abolish
them. So, the environmentalists don't much like the WTO because it is trying to
destroy the environment. What that means is that the WTO tries to put people
ahead of the wilderness, and suchlike. I happen to think a 40 acre farm
supporting a family is preferable to 40 acres of forest. (I'll go into the
fiasco of Brazilian settlement in the rain forest, if anyone is interested.)
This seems to horrify some Greens who see the loss of a tree as a
disaster. Yet, in the US, for example, the northern forests' wood count has
been going up every year since the mid '20's. The US Department of Foresty
consistently underestimates the growth, then measures it upward. It does seem
that many environmentalists are playing at conservation -- and the WTO happens
to be a highly visible target. So they join the rest in Seattle.
Yet, there are basic reforms that would change the direction of human
activity, concentrate the cities, "infill" automatically, pull us
back out of the habitats -- allow creatures to occupy the space that efficient
land use would make available for wilderness.
Instead, I fear that some of the most vociferous environmentalists are
more interested in psychological massaging of their egos than in solving real
ecological problems.
Should we support the WTO? I suggest that with all its warts, it's all
we've got. Without it, there isn't much. We would be giving up the battle,
leaving the protectionists in charge.
Perhaps we should make a beginning by crusading against the US tariffs
that prevent Third World countries from earning their livings. That's something
we could do -- except we would have most of corporate America against us.
That's far too difficult - maybe we should beat up the WTO instead.
Am I getting cynical?
Harry Pollard -- January, 2001 (in the Henry George Institute
website: www.henrygeorge.org )
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
The reader's comments are very welcome. Please send a letter to the International
Georgist Union, 212 Piccadilly, W1J 9HG, United Kingdom, or e-mail to iu@interunion.org.uk
Back to 'Contributers to the debate
on FREE TRADE'; click here!