Quarta-feira, 2 de Maio de 2007

Comércio Livre

The Case for Free Trade

Today, as always, there is much support for tariffs [...] Of course, no group makes its claims on the basis of naked self-interest. Every group speaks of the "general interest," of the need to preserve jobs or to promote national security. The need to strengthen the dollar vis-à-vis the deutsche mark or the yen has more recently joined the traditional rationalizations for restrictions on imports.

One voice that is hardly ever raised is the consumer's. [...] the supporters of tariffs treat it as self evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number--for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs--jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.

Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.

[...]"Protection" really means exploiting the consumer. A "favorable balance of trade" really means exporting more than we import, sending abroad goods of greater total value than the goods we get from abroad.

[...]The argument in favor of tariffs that has the greatest emotional appeal to the public at large is the alleged need to protect the high standard of living of American workers from the "unfair" competition of workers in Japan or Korea or Hong Kong who are willing to work for a much lower wage. What is wrong with this argument? Don't we want to protect the high standard of living of our people?

The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms "high" wage and "low" wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate?

[...]We are a great nation, the leader of the world. It ill behooves us to require Hong Kong and Taiwan to impose export quotas on textiles to "protect" our textile industry at the expense of U.S. consumers and of Chinese workers in Hong Kong and Taiwan. We speak glowingly of the virtues of free trade, while we use our political and economic power to induce Japan to restrict exports of steel and TV sets. We should move unilaterally to free trade, not instantaneously but over a period of, say, five years, at a pace announced in advance.

Few measures that we could take would do more to promote the cause of freedom at home and abroad than complete free trade. Instead of making grants to foreign governments in the name of economic aid--thereby promoting socialism--while at the same time imposing restrictions on the products they produce--thereby hindering free enterprise--we could assume a consistent and principled stance. We could say to the rest of the world: We believe in freedom and intend to practice it. We cannot force you to be free. But we can offer full cooperation on equal terms to all. Our market is open to you without tariffs or other restrictions. Sell here what you can and wish to. Buy whatever you can and wish to. In that way cooperation among individuals can be worldwide and free.

Adapted from "The Tyranny of Controls" in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman

publicado por Jorge A. às 22:29
link | comentar

Autoritarismo Novo

Tabaco: nova lei obriga comerciantes a denunciar clientes fumadores

O sr. Silva é proprietário de um bar. O sr. Silva é fumador. Os clientes habituais do bar do sr. Silva são fumadores - e os restantes, não fumadores, não se importam de frequentar o bar do sr. Silva nas condições actuais. O bar do sr. Silva tem 90 m2. O sr. Silva com a nova lei imposta por quem nos governa (e com o apoio insuspeito do partido do sr. Portas, e também do partido do sr. Mendes), terá obrigatoriamente de não permitir que ninguém use fumar no seu estabelecimento. O sr. Silva também percebe que no seu estabelecimento, cada vez manda menos, e o estado manda mais.
publicado por Jorge A. às 00:11
link | comentar
Terça-feira, 1 de Maio de 2007

1º Maio

Amanhã festeja-se o dia do trabalhador por esse mundo fora. A excepção são mesmo os Estados Unidos e o Canadá - para estes, o dia do trabalhador festeja-se na primeira segunda-feira de Setembro - questões históricas relevantes, segundo julgo saber, estão na origem de tal discrepância...
A fotografia que acompanha o post é do blogue TóColante.
publicado por Jorge A. às 00:09
link | comentar

Mais sobre mim



Subscrever feeds

Pesquisar neste blog



Janeiro 2010

Dezembro 2009

Novembro 2009

Outubro 2009

Setembro 2009

Agosto 2009

Julho 2009

Junho 2009

Maio 2009

Abril 2009

Março 2009

Fevereiro 2009

Janeiro 2009

Dezembro 2008

Novembro 2008

Outubro 2008

Setembro 2008

Agosto 2008

Julho 2008

Junho 2008

Maio 2008

Abril 2008

Março 2008

Fevereiro 2008

Janeiro 2008

Dezembro 2007

Novembro 2007

Outubro 2007

Setembro 2007

Agosto 2007

Julho 2007

Junho 2007

Maio 2007

Abril 2007

Março 2007

Fevereiro 2007

Janeiro 2007

Dezembro 2006

Novembro 2006

Outubro 2006

Setembro 2006

Julho 2006



politica nacional(373)







eleições eua(118)

estados unidos(115)



miúdas giras(93)


politica internacional(87)






todas as tags

blogs SAPO