But California can't impose duties on goods coming into California from States that don't have the same worker compensation laws. ie Fair Trade
If there were no government intervention Microsoft would have never been sued, Standard Oil wouldn't have been broken up, and the telephone company wouldn't have been chopped into pieces.
You're heading into different territory (which I'd gladly discuss, but in another thread). Those were also national actions. California can't put a tax on Microsoft software just because it's made in Washington, in order to encourage software development in California. California is not allowed to put up trade barriers with every State it considers 'unfair' because of different minimum wage or worker compensation rules. It also can't put up a Berlin Wall to keep businesses and people in, so both people and businesses flee as they see fit to more hospitable governments (Nevada, Florida, etc.)
Yes. And that is essentially what we are doing on an international scale. We are using our sovereign power to make what was considered a 'national action' into an international one. In an FTA both sovereign nations agree to a set of rules and use their sovereign power to enforce them. It is only slightly different than the California vs Washington example. California agreed to abide in those rules upon entering the union. But now, most characterize the situation as the Federal Government imposing those rules on them. If you view it as compulsion on a federal level thats ok. However on an international level its not compulsion, its willing participation.
Free Trade Agreements ultimately set out to make international locations part of our economy. Its no different. It requires actions on both parts, and willing participation of the sovereign nations entering into that agreement.
California can't put a tax on Microsoft software just because it's made in Washington, in order to encourage software development in California. California is not allowed to put up trade barriers with every State it considers 'unfair' because of different minimum wage or worker compensation rules. It also can't put up a Berlin Wall to keep businesses and people in, so both people and businesses flee as they see fit to more hospitable governments (Nevada, Florida, etc.)
EXACTLY. You are making my point exactly. That hits the nail on the head.
Now, why can't they? Because there is a higher law governing how they treat each other. And they agreed to it long ago.
A Trade Agreement is the highest form of international law governing the two respective parties. That law often eliminates tarriffs, but it is not just about tarriffs. Its about the system as an overall operation. Again, it is entered into willingly, and submitted to lawfully by both parties.
A Trade Agreement has to be ratified into law by all concerned parties.
We cannot just jump into an FTA. It has to be signed off on, and into law, by the House, Senate, and President. That, as well as the same procedure in whatever the other respective country is.
We both agree to use our own sovereign powers to uphold that set of laws we agreed to...Thats not giving up sovereignty.
It is also not at ALL managed trade. It is far from it, and actually the opposite of it.
true, but it CAN cut it's own taxes in order to entice businesses to set up shop in california instead of washington or Nevada. That is what this country doesn't understand when it comes to international trade: the theory of tax competition. It works well between the states, but we don't even acknowledge it on the international stage. Other states have, however. Ireland has slashed corporate taxes and have seen their economy BOOM. Even socialist Europe has realized it; they cut their corporate taxes too, although they replaced a lot of them with a exporter-exempt Value-added Tax. Now the EU waqnts to put in place a MINIMUM coporate tax because low-tax Ireland is stealing manufacturing jobs!
Tax comeptition works wonders between the states, and there is no reason why we shouldn't be employing it on the world stage.