(This is one of a weekly series of posts entitled “A Centrist’s Platform”. The complete collection of Centrist’s Platform posts is available on a single page, or via a special RSS feed.)
One of the hot topics in the Dems’ campaigns for the Ohio and Texas primaries was a debate on the merits of NAFTA and free trade in general.
Within the context of that discussion, Ohio and Texas provide an interesting contrast. On the one hand, you have the rust-belt state of Ohio, which has seemingly been walloped by industry leaving the state for less-costly venues.
On the other hand, you have Texas, which is not only a lower-cost venue, but is seeing a boom from being so centrally located on the new free-trade axis, and the new industry and services that result from that enviable position.
I am a firm believer in the power of the free market. In the long run, society in general benefits from an environment where trade is free and fair…although the transition to such freedom, and shifts in the general market, can be painful for the folks closest to the change.
However, I suspect that our leaders tend to forget the “and fair” portion of “free and fair trade”. Granted, fairness is a subjective measure, but “free trade” isn’t supposed to simply be a codeword for “throwing open the doors for a mass exodus of industry without some benefit flowing back”.
When looking at alleged free-trade practices or arrangements, it is I think important to remember that “trade” consists of more than just goods. True, you would expect to see a shift in manufacturing operations to those areas where it is cheapest or most efficient under a “free and fair” trade environment.
However that freedom shouldn’t be turned into a backdoor to avoid taxation or environmental protections. And, to be truly fair, that freedom also needs to allow for movement of labor and of capital.
If it’s more efficient to operate a factory in Country X (even after allowing for the same standards of environmental protection), that’s fine…but let us freely invest in and provide services to Country X in return for giving up the industrial production at home.
Similarly, if it’s more efficient to manufacture in Country X, perhaps provision should be made for some of our manufacturing laborers to have a chance to compete for jobs in Country X…or for Country X’s folks to come here, if the real cause of that disparity is a shortage of cheap labor domestically.
I know that it is likely in the next administration that there will be some reform of “free trade”. I hope that it won’t be the readoption of inefficient protectionism. I’d much prefer to see an expansion to “free and fair trade” rather than the half-baked implementation we have today.