One problem, however, is that globalization has losers: unskilled workers are likely to see downward pressure on their wages as they face competition from cheaper workers in Asia. In this sense there are those who imports could, in effect, make poorer – something that, until recently, politicians have been loathe to admit.
]]>Me selling a shiny ferrarri would make me rich. It is exports that make us rich.
the letter he cited used a straw man in the sentence “But if the purpose of economic activity truly were to produce and sell as much as possible in exchange for as few goods and services as possible”.
Selling lots gets lots of money in, that money can then be spent how one likes.
I’m no economist, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
The story does, however, also feature (in a decidedly more positive form, as this is a website aimed at the food industry itself) at CEE-FoodIndustry.com
]]>Quite agree – so where have you been since the 1940’s when we gave the Americans sovereignty over large parts of British soil? Walk onto any US base in the UK and it is American law which holds force, not British law. I fell foul of this in the 1960’s when I took a photograph of a little league baseball match on a US base and was arrested (taking photos of little league baseball matches is illegal without written permission from the little league – in the US! – and all US military establishments in the UK are classified as US sovereign territory).
The world is getting more and more interlinked, we can’t avoid ‘foreigners’, but better Brussels (who are at least European) than Washington.
]]>Good points, which I shall address in a post later today (have to do some work first) but just a quickie.
“Enable free flow of goods, people, services and capital.”
This could be put aother way:
To disable any one country’s wish to limit the free flow of goods, people, services and capital.”
With, of course, the “free flow of people” being the contentious issue. The point is that if a country wishes to limit some of these, should they be forced? And by what authority?
This country, for instance, has never, ever had a referendum on joining the EEC, EC or the EU. There is a severe democratic deficit, not only in the EU as it stands, but also, on this issue, with our own government.
I’ll write more later.
DK
]]>Entrench free-trade and fight protectionism at the transnational level.
Enable free flow of goods, people, services and capital.
Provide a forum for closer working on issues that go beyond national borders – these may be big issues (the fight against terrorism or organized crime, looking for ways to preserve the environment without knackering the economy); or much more mundane ones (completing the trans-European transport network to enable trade).
Entrenching alliances between states and allowing for a forum in which arguments are framed as questions of politics rather than military matters.
Where states agree, give Europe a larger voice in global affairs: at a time when the world is increasingly going to be dominated by the US, India and China, smaller states like the Netherlands or, hey, even the UK are going to have ever decreasing clout on their own.
…I’m not saying that current EU does all these things effectively, or even at all. Reform is certainly necessary. But there are plenty of things that the EU could be doing. Imagine if the impact if the union were to unilaterally abolish all tariffs and subsidies, for example. This clearly isn’t happening any time soon, but if it did it would represent a far more effective clearing away of bureaucracy than could be done at the national level.
The problem is the irrationality of emotional statements like this:
I don’t care if it’s the best idea since, er, sliced bread, I just do not want my country run under rules and regulations imposed on us from a bunch of foreigners.
…isn’t going away any time soon, even if the EU were a lot more effective than it is and the democratic deficit were corrected.
]]>