Trade as a Means of Wealth Redistribution to the Third World

From August 26 through September 4, over 4,000 official delegates and over 3,000 activists from 'non-government organizations'(NGOs) will meet at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. They will be joined at the end of the conference by the heads of state from 100 countries. It is being billed as the largest event the U.N. has ever staged, meant to tackle the largest problem the modern world has ever faced: economic development. Yet the entire venture can be summed up in one word: redistribution.

That is one good reason for President George Bush not to attend, though the United States has sent a delegation to participate in the discussions. The United States will, however, be talked about much more than listened to.

America's wealth makes it a target. The halls are filled with the all-too-familiar refrain of self-righteous delegates from failed states and guilt-ridden intellectuals from Western NGOs that the U.S. with only five percent of the world's population uses 25 percent of the world's resources. No mention is made that the U.S. also produces more than 25 percent of the world's output, which is what makes it the world's leading civilization. Furthermore, the U.S. has held this lead position for over a century. America's captains of industry turned the country east of the Mississippi River into the world's manufacturing hub at the same time its cattle kings and prairie farming communities turned the lands west of the 'great muddy' into the world's largest breadbasket.

The rest of the world could learn to do the same, but U.N. meetings like the current one showcase the two ideological maladies that not only cripple real development but threaten to make the 21st century a time of great violence and strife.

The first is the notion that it is unfair for the U.S. and other developed countries to have so much while the Third World has so little. The gap can only be closed by shifting industry from the West to the developing countries. U.N. Millennium Development Goals demand that the industrialize countries 'address the least developed countries' special needs. This includes tariff- and quota-free access for their exports; enhanced debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction.'

The first item on the U.N. priority list, 'free trade' will continue to be the most effective tool of income redistribution. It will expedite the further movement of factories out of the U.S. into 'export platforms' overseas. The arena for this plundering of the Western economies will not be the U.N. but the World Trade Organization, whose Doha Round talks are committed to this end.

Since transnational corporations, including many nominally American firms, will be the ones moving the factories and engaging in the expanded international commerce, they favor this version of 'free trade' and their partisans have been talking up the U.N. and WTO agenda.

For example, Pete DuPont -- a vocal free trader at the National Center for Policy Analysis (and former Republican governor of Delaware), wrote in a column on the Johannesburg summit "Among the policies of industrialized countries that stifle economic progress in developing countries, few are more pernicious than trade barriers in the form of discriminatory tariffs and duties placed upon goods entering the country and subsidies and tax breaks favoring producers in developed countries." Third World states have an obligation to help producers expand in their lands, but Western states have apparently lost the right to put their people first.

The other element supporting redistribution is the environmental movement which is a very large presence at the U.N. summit. That the conference is about 'sustainable' development is a testimony to Green influences, as the term refers to keeping economic growth within limits set by the environmentalists.

If the world will run into resource of ecological limits in the near future, then whatever the 'sustainable' level of output is should be used in an equitable manner to provide the greatest good to the greatest number. "Only in this way can the immeasurable riches provided to us by nature be preserved and passed on to our descendants. The current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed in the interest of our future welfare and that of our descendants." says the U.N. Millennium Declaration, "Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and most representative organization in the world, the United Nations must play the central role."

Moving industry from the West to the Third World will not only even out wealth it is alleged, but improve the environment as it will give planners the chance to design more 'responsible' systems of production and transportation emphasizing renewable energy sources and mass transit (there is a vocal movement to keep the Third World on bicycles and out of automobiles). The Third World represents to idealists the chance to start over and create societies more to their liking.

Of course, the real world is not likely to follow the utopians. One of the great lures of American industry to the Third World is that environmental standards are so much less restrictive, thus keeping down the cost of production. It is not the Western nations who are exporting "brown clouds" to the Third World. It's the Third World that's exporting brown clouds to the rest of the world. China, for example, relies primarily on coal -- which it has in abundance, making the air quality over its coastal cities among the worst on the planet. And it is the Third World states which have dug in their heels against any attempt to tie trade to environmental standards because they know their higher tolerance for pollution is a competitive advantage in world markets.

Even more dangerous are the implications of a world with limited resources and fixed (or only slowly growing) output. A zero-sum world, where the only way for one people to gain is to take wealth away from some other people, is not conducive to peace. Indeed, it would very much approximate the 'state of nature' described by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century as "a war of all against all." There is already a growing literature about potential conflicts over water, oil and arable land, but in the modern world it is technology and industry which determine who will have the weapons needed to prevail in such conflicts. If the future of the world is to be one of endless conflict over the distribution of wealth, then the United States cannot afford to let is material power base be diminished.

Whether the redistribution of the world's wealth-producing assets are orchestrated by international organizations or transnational corporations, it must be resisted by U.S. officials whose duty is to protect the prosperity and security of the American people.

I wonder what would happen in the minds of the radical left-wingers who push for this kind of "free" trade agenda when they realize that the main beneficiaries of their policies are corporate chieftians?

"Free Trade" is not about capitalism, as it is not fair. Are you saying that barriers on U.S. goods is free or fair when there are low to no barriers on Chinese and foreign goods?

The facts are that since NAFTA & GATT started, the de-industrialization of America continues. What about giving China favored trade nation status? The Socialists are the big-government Globalists who are proposing and implementing this travesty.

This "Free Trade" is an engine for wealth distribution, as it is responsible for a trade deficit, the creation of an import-based economy, de-industrialization, inflation and higher taxes. Things that I'm sure you'd agree are bad.

Transnational "corporate chieftians" are merely myopic, useful idiots for the lefties.

TRADE DEFICIT: Formally termed a balance of trade deficit, a condition in which a nation's imports are greater than exports. In other words, a country is buying more stuff for foreigners than foreigners are buying from domestic producers. A trade deficit is usually thought to be bad for a country. For this reason, some countries seek to reduce their trade deficit by--

establishing trade barriers on imports,

reducing the exchange rate (termed devaluation) such that exports are less expensive and imports more expensive, or

invading foreign countries with sizable armies.

WEALTH: The net ownership of material possessions and productive resources. In other words, the difference between physical and financial assets that you own and the liabilities that you owe. Wealth includes all of the tangible consumer stuff that you possess, like cars, houses, clothes, jewelry, etc.; any financial assets, like stocks, bonds, bank accounts, that you lay claim to; and your ownership of resources, including labor, capital, and natural resources. Of course, you must deduct any debts you owe.
VALUE ADDED: The increase in the value of a good at each stage of the production process. The value that's being increased is specifically the ability of a good to satisfy wants and needs either directly as a consumption good or indirectly as a capital good. A good that provides greater satisfaction has greater value. In essence, the whole purpose of production is to transform raw materials and natural resources that have relatively little value into goods and services that have greater value.
SERVICE: An activity that provides direct satisfaction of wants and needs without the production of a tangible product or good. Examples include information, entertainment, and education. This term good should be contrasted with the term good, which involves the satisfaction of wants and needs with tangible items. You're likely to see the plural combination of these two into a single phrase, "goods and services," to indicate the wide assortment of economic production from the economy's scarce resources.

Wealth is created only by engaging in value-added activities. By the same token, Service sector activities do not create wealth, they merely transfer, redistribute and eventually dissipate wealth as consumption. Thus, as value-added activities move offshore and the U.S. labor force shifts to the Service Sector, wealth is dissipated, not created. And the U.S. standard of living declines as a result.

I wonder how any non-Communist in the United States can even consider embracing as a goal, "income redistribution."

I do not wish the Third World Nations any harm. I would never want to put an impediment in the way of any nation, growing rich and prosperous. But why should any nation expect to have the fruits of the labors of any other nation redistributed to it?

Charity--the voluntary generosity of achievers--is one thing. But any suggestion that there should be a formal or informal mechanism to redistribute any people's wealth to any other people, smacks of one of the "isms" that brave Americans have given their lives to stop from ever threatening these shores.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

"Free Trade" is not about capitalism, as it is not fair. Are you saying that barriers on U.S. goods is free or fair when there are low to no barriers on Chinese and foreign goods?

Free Trade is fair because it rewards hard work over political connections. If a Chinaman makes any product better than an American, do you really think it's fair to cut off his hard work from US consumers and force them to buy lesser quality US goods?

What about giving China favored trade nation status? The Socialists are the big-government Globalists who are proposing and implementing this travesty.

I propose giving ALL countries (except Lybia etc...) most-favored status, it will bring the world even closer to Capitalism.

the Trade Deficit is a myth. It doesn't exist. The fact that you refer to it in such a manner shows your ignorance of Economics. Read the books I've mentioned before, and maybe this article:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dg061198.html.

De-industrialization is good because modern economies are and should be based on high-tech and services, not producing Jeans at minimum wage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.