|
Written by Stumo
|
|
Monday, 31 March 2008 |
|
This was a pretty good op-ed on what our trade policy is doing to the world.
Since the 1980s, pesticide use has increased fivefold in Latin
America as countries have expanded their production of nontraditional
crops to fuel the demand for fresh produce during winter in North
America and Europe. Rice farmers in the region use monocrotophos,
methamidophos and carbofuran, all agricultural chemicals that are rated
Class I toxins by the World Health Organization, are highly toxic to
birds, and are either restricted or banned in the United States. In
countries like Guatemala, Honduras and Ecuador, researchers have found
that farmers spray their crops heavily and repeatedly with a chemical
cocktail of dangerous pesticides.
We regulate our food production to protect our environment and safety, then accuse U.S.
producers of not being efficient enough to compete with farmers in
other countries. And the trade agreements prevent us from
addressing those nasty foreign production practices. We have to treat imported rice the same as domestic rice.
But when you
try to change trade policy, you get haughty speeches about "Economics
101" and "Adam Smith" - as if those terms provide any assistance to the
wacko free trader position.
The NY Times had a series last year on China's big environmental
problems. Trade was not front and center, though China's currency
manipulation is the root cause. Why? Currency manipulation
fuels China's 12% annual growth rate, which is too fast to do
responsibly. It also fuels vigorous outsourcing by U.S. companies
who can then benefit from the artificially low prices that exceed the
cost of several thousand added miles of shipping (which net benefit
would disappear absent the manipulation). Efficient factories
here, that produce in compliance with U.S. safety and environmental
laws, shut
down to either jump on the Chinese currency manipulation gravy
train - or because they are victims of multinationals chasing the
"China price".
Protectionism and mercantalism drive the trade
deficit. The protectionism and mercantilism of our major trading
partners. We preach free trade when few others engage in
it. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. We are in a
gunfight folks. And we don't have a knife. We are singing
kum-bay-yah.
|
|
In the news
|
The following article was written by Charles Blum of the International Advisory Services Group, Ltd. who served 17 years in the U. S. government in foreign policy and trade policy positions.
|
|
Read more...
|
|