It only takes a few mild comments on the benefits of free trade, the value of reducing distortions, for the crazed loons to appear howling about the evils of free trade. Alex Singleton is asked by Newsnig8t for his views on the reduction in the sugar support programme in the EU.
He is, to my mind, exceptionally mild….regular readers will know that I advocate the complete destruction of CAP yesterday. Yet this brings a crazed response from Perfect.co.uk.
Dangerous extremist given airtime by the BBC
No, I’m not talking about the Ignorant Bigots on the Today programme, but Alex Singleton of the Globalization Institute on Newsnig8t.
Our word is our weapon has plenty of material that de-bunks their dangerous claims, go read…
Alex is hardly a dangerous extremist, that’s a phrase more usefully used of Jim at Our Word. Now you might already know that I am involved with the Globalization Institute so what I say about this might need to be taken with a large handful of salt. So why don’t we look for someone else on the subject?
How about Owen Barder? He likes Jim at Our Word, doesn’t like my views at all and has been scathing about Alex and the Globalization Institute. He’s also, in his own words, a typical Guardian reading lefty, and more importantly for this discussion, actually works in the world of aid and NGOs, even has a decent education in economics. What is his view on the specifics of what is under discussion? The issue of trade liberalisation? It is this very point that is the difference between, say, Jim (and many of those supporting Make Poverty History) and Alex.
Owen on Christian Aid’s comparison of free trade with slavery:
To compare free trade with slavery is a grotesque mischaracterisation.
On infant industry protection (the major argument given as to why poor countries should not liberalize their own trade):
The trouble is that the firms often become dependant on the protection
from competition, and do not ever become truly competitive. The result
is that the population of the country have to pay more for those things
than if they could buy them on world markets; and the industry never
becomes a viable proposition.
On the benefits of globalization:
- there is no question that the world as a whole is better off with free trade – the gains far outweigh the losses
- but the distribution of those gains will depend on how the liberalisation is managed
- if
we want to acclerate trade liberalisation – and so reap those benefits
sooner – we should be more creative about redistributing the benefits
to compensate the losers. These gains are so large that, even if we
provide generous benefits to the losers, we are still better off as a
whole. - we should use the benefits of global trade
liberalisation to offset short term losses in developing countries –
both to ensure that the poor get a large proportion of the benefits of
trade liberalisation, and to ensure that the impact on poor countries
does not become an obstacle to further trade liberalisation
On the EU’s attitude towards trade regulation:
The EU has reached an agreement with China under which China will
restrain its exports of textiles and clothes into the EU until the end
of 2008. The negotiators – EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and
Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai – are are very pleased with
themselves for averting a trade dispute. They should be ashamed of
themselves.
This is an agreement that does not benefit the EU,
whose consumers will be denied access to cheaper clothing, nor the
China whose producers will be prevented from selling their products to
people who want to buy them.
On the very basics of free trade and the worst possible outcome (which is that at worst, we could end up no better off):
This is an excellent post
by Brad DeLong, explaining why free trade can only be good, and
explaining why we should not worry that all our jobs and income will
shift overseas.
What I think needs to be emphasied here is the political, even emotional divide. Alex and I might be considered to be on the right wing on most matters. Owen and Jim on the left. Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman are also of the left (and much better economists than any of us).
Yet on this one subject, free trade, the value of or not thereof, the split is not between those of right and left, between those of a particular political persuasion at all. It’s between those who know their economics and those who don’t. Mssrs Krugman and DeLong, Professors both, are adamant and unapologetic free traders, as is almost every other academic in the field. Alex and I and Owen are all similarly on the free trade side. Owen supports much of the Make Poverty History aims and ambitions, and is most certainly not an admirer of the views of Alex or myself.
Yet don’t you think it interesting, don’t you think it actually says something about the subject under discussion? The academic view is , from Friedman to Krugman, that free trade is a good thing, in and of itself. From within the NGO/Aid groups, Owen concurs. Alex and I are similarly going with the mainstream view (on this, if not everything).
Just who are the extremists around here?
Leave a Reply