What is your opinion on Free Trade Zones.
A free trade zone (FTZ) or export processing zone (EPZ) is one or more special areas of a country where some normal trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas are eliminated and bureaucratic requirements are lowered in hopes of attracting new business and foreign investments. Free trade zones can be defined as labor intensive manufacturing centers that involve the import of raw materials or components and the export of factory products. Most FTZs are located in developing countries. Bureaucracy is typically minimized by outsourcing it to the FTZ operator and corporations setting up in the zone may be given tax breaks as an additional incentive. Usually, these zones are set up in underdeveloped parts of the host country, the rationale being that the zones will attract employers and thus reduce poverty and unemployment and stimulate the area's economy. These zones are often used by multinational corporations to set up factories to produce goods (such as clothing or shoes). Free trade zones in Latin America date back to the early decades of the 20th century. The first free trade regulations in this region were enacted in Argentina and Uruguay in the 1920s. However, the rapid development of free trade zones across the region dates from the late 1960s and the early 1970s. In 1999, there were 43 million people working in about 3000 FTZs spanning 116 countries producing clothes, shoes, sneakers, electronics, and toys. The basic objectives of EPZs are to enhance foreign exchange earnings, develop export-oriented industries and to generate employment opportunities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_zone
A free trade zone (FTZ) or export processing zone (EPZ) is one or more special areas of a country where some normal trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas are eliminated and bureaucratic requirements are lowered in hopes of attracting new business and foreign investments. Free trade zones can be defined as labor intensive manufacturing centers that involve the import of raw materials or components and the export of factory products.
Most FTZs are located in developing countries. Bureaucracy is typically minimized by outsourcing it to the FTZ operator and corporations setting up in the zone may be given tax breaks as an additional incentive. Usually, these zones are set up in underdeveloped parts of the host country, the rationale being that the zones will attract employers and thus reduce poverty and unemployment and stimulate the area's economy. These zones are often used by multinational corporations to set up factories to produce goods (such as clothing or shoes).
Free trade zones in Latin America date back to the early decades of the 20th century. The first free trade regulations in this region were enacted in Argentina and Uruguay in the 1920s. However, the rapid development of free trade zones across the region dates from the late 1960s and the early 1970s.
In 1999, there were 43 million people working in about 3000 FTZs spanning 116 countries producing clothes, shoes, sneakers, electronics, and toys. The basic objectives of EPZs are to enhance foreign exchange earnings, develop export-oriented industries and to generate employment opportunities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_zone
Who thinks it is worthwhile establishing those kind of zones in more Countries. And more interesting, who of you would (actively) engage into establishing such a zone in a random country.
I have read a little about these zones and maybe need to read more but from what I understand these zones often result in the exploitation of labor and the local governments for the benifit of the capitalist's. I would not support such zones for I beleive the less government involvement in the economy is the best way to stimulate economic growth.
we must resist the borg
anonnymous:I would not support such zones for I beleive the less government involvement in the economy is the best way to stimulate economic growth.
So you are against economic growth?
I don't believe in free trade zones. I simply believe in free trade. That means no special "zone" needs to be established in order to trade. There should be zero restrictions on all trade between people no matter where they live.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
banned: anonnymous:I would not support such zones for I beleive the less government involvement in the economy is the best way to stimulate economic growth. So you are against economic growth?
No I'm not against growth but if that is the excepted standard for growth then I would have to say no to the free trade zones which some would think that is a no for growth. From what I have learned these free trade zones exploit labor and local government at the exspense of the populace as a whole.
I have to agree. Free Trade only works when all of the partners are free to trade.
Most "free trade agreements" are corporate subsidies, if you read the fine print. For example, a geographic area is exempted from sales taxes. People who already own land or businesses in that area are the beneficiary of a government subsidy.
The only way to implement "free trade" is to have no regulations or taxes at all. I'm forced to "purchase" services from the government whether I want to or now. It's silly to talk about free trade when people are forced to purchase government agains their will.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
kingmonkey: I don't believe in free trade zones. I simply believe in free trade. That means no special "zone" needs to be established in order to trade. There should be zero restrictions on all trade between people no matter where they live.
Assuming that free trade is a good goal, wouldn't free trade zones be a good start to convince the skeptics?
fsk: Most "free trade agreements" are corporate subsidies, if you read the fine print. For example, a geographic area is exempted from sales taxes. People who already own land or businesses in that area are the beneficiary of a government subsidy. The only way to implement "free trade" is to have no regulations or taxes at all. I'm forced to "purchase" services from the government whether I want to or now. It's silly to talk about free trade when people are forced to purchase government agains their will.
What you write is also embedded in the articles.
[edit] Criticism The creation of special free trade zones is criticized for encouraging businesses to set up operations under the influence of often corrupt governments, and giving foreign corporations more economic liberty than is given indigenous employers who face large and sometimes insurmountable "regulatory" hurdles in developing nations. However, many countries are increasingly allowing local entrepreneurs to locate inside FTZs in order to access export-based incentives. Because the multinational corporation is able to choose between a wide range of underdeveloped or depressed nations in setting up overseas factories, and most of these countries do not have limited governments, bidding wars erupt between competing governments. Often the government pays part of the initial cost of factory setup, loosens environmental protections and rules regarding negligence and the treatment of workers, and promises not to ask payment of taxes for the next few years. When the taxation-free years are over the corporation which set up the factory without fully assuming its costs is often able to set up operations elsewhere for less expense than the taxes to be paid, giving it leverage to take the host government to the bargaining table with more demands in order for it to continue operations in the country. Often if human rights, labor or environmental abuses are challenged, subcontracted local entities may face consequences, but parent companies in the United States are rarely held accountable. [1] The widespread use of free trade zones by companies such as Nike has received criticism from numerous writers such as Naomi Klein in her book No Logo.
The creation of special free trade zones is criticized for encouraging businesses to set up operations under the influence of often corrupt governments, and giving foreign corporations more economic liberty than is given indigenous employers who face large and sometimes insurmountable "regulatory" hurdles in developing nations. However, many countries are increasingly allowing local entrepreneurs to locate inside FTZs in order to access export-based incentives. Because the multinational corporation is able to choose between a wide range of underdeveloped or depressed nations in setting up overseas factories, and most of these countries do not have limited governments, bidding wars erupt between competing governments.
Often the government pays part of the initial cost of factory setup, loosens environmental protections and rules regarding negligence and the treatment of workers, and promises not to ask payment of taxes for the next few years. When the taxation-free years are over the corporation which set up the factory without fully assuming its costs is often able to set up operations elsewhere for less expense than the taxes to be paid, giving it leverage to take the host government to the bargaining table with more demands in order for it to continue operations in the country. Often if human rights, labor or environmental abuses are challenged, subcontracted local entities may face consequences, but parent companies in the United States are rarely held accountable. [1]
The widespread use of free trade zones by companies such as Nike has received criticism from numerous writers such as Naomi Klein in her book No Logo.
A good question to a libertarian is: Assume that Country X is a restrictive, protectionist, welfare state that errected a free trade zone in one of it's coastal areas, while the rest country remains as is for now. Would you move to that zone or would you chose to stay in the restrictive area?
Of course free trade, without any trade barriers are the best thing. However there is lots of trade barriers everywere, so if one tradebarrier somewhere between some people is knocked down its a good thing. The only thing worse than a trade barrier with holes in it, is trade barriers without any holes in it at all. Its like taxes, ofcourse a world without taxes is best. Should we be against tax cuts for some people, because taxes themselves are wrong? Ofcourse not, any tax cuts are good, and any lowering of tariffs are good. We cant knock over all the trade barriers at once, for all, everywhere, we have to knock one trade barrier down at a time. We have to make holes in trade barriers one shot at a time.
Cheers
DriftWood:Of course free trade, without any trade barriers are the best thing. However there is lots of trade barriers everywere, so if one tradebarrier somewhere between some people is knocked down its a good thing.
This is done for well politically connected individuals at the expense of everybody else. These FTZ sound like crony capitalism; it sounds like tax and regulation benefits, not tax and regulation cuts.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
"This is done for well politically connected individuals at the expense of everybody else. These FTZ sound like crony capitalism; it sounds like tax and regulation benefits, not tax and regulation cuts."
Even if that was true. It still think it would be a good thing. If you and i are lucky enough to be able to trade with eachother, without trade barriers (because we are politicall connected or something), both of us gain, but noone else will suffer. Trade is not a zero sum game. Trade is always mutually benifitial, it has to be because both parties of a trade agree to it voluntarily. There is no such thing as forced trade (that would be stealing, and that already illegal). So a trade means that both of us value the thing we got more than the thing we gave away. The trade only affects us, noone else get effected. So our gain, is not anyone elses pain. This is not just theory, its logic. Trade barriers kills marginal trade between people, some of the value is lost in trading because of the barriers.. and marginal trade that would have been mutually benifitial never happens.This is a sad state of affairs as it kills value, it makes society poorer. The less trade that get killed like this the better. So saying that no other people should be allowed to free trade because i cant, is close to being jealous. Its like a bucket full of crabs. When one crab is about to climb out of the bucket, the rest of the crabs pull him back in. In the end no crab manages to escape.
Having government to put a huge burden in everybody else but you, and paying you out of everybody else's work, is a good way to create a monopoly. If that's not enough, they'll daunt you with regulation to deny you deals and even entrance. I guess it's still better than if that activity was banned for all. That doesn't make it any less true that you're having success because everybody else is being pushed down though.
You can not be for Government Managed Trade if you are for private property rights. Individuals in free, prosperous and efficient societies have the right to exchange their property with others, and should have the open right to do this with people in other nations. A "Free Trade Zone" is a creation of government and enforced with violence as others outside the zone might want to do the same kinds of things but is prohibited from doing so.
Remember Ross Perot, He was against a broader NAFTA because of imaginary job loss but very much for the Free Trade Zone where his son was doing business.
There is no such thing as a Government Sponsored Free Trade Zone. There is free trade and behavior managed by government violence. There is no continuum between liberty and slavery or between free trade and behavior modification.
Yes no individual should have his wage taxed by the govt, or have to pay a tariff to the govt for the imported products he buys. The fact of the matter is that the govt taxes every wage, and it takes a tariff of every imported product he buys. Every wage is taxed, and every imported product is tariffed. This is clearly a violation of an individuals property rights. So what can we do about it? Well, we can vote for loweer taxes and lower tariffs. Managed trade agreements lower the tariffs between two countries. Before they probably had their standard general WTO compliant trade barriers up against eachother. Say 8% on all products. Afterwards they have on average, say a 5% tariff on all products. It might be higher for some products and lower for some.. but on the whole its a lowering of tariffs. If it wasnt, then the countries would not trade threw the country specific managed trade agreements but threw the old standard WTO trade agreements.
You see, managed trade agreements is allot like lowering of taxes, its still wrong but its less wrong than before.
DriftWood:So what can we do about it? Well, we can vote for loweer taxes and lower tariffs.
You're missing the point of "market anarchism". Voting doesn't work; the election system is defective. All forms of taxation are theft, and cannot be justified by any amount of voting. Agorism is the only resistance strategy that isn't a waste of time.
The bad guys aren't going to voluntarily give up their power to leech off the productivity of everyone else.
fsk:You're missing the point of "market anarchism". Voting doesn't work; the election system is defective. All forms of taxation are theft, and cannot be justified by any amount of voting. Agorism is the only resistance strategy that isn't a waste of time.
I placed the thread on free trade zones merely as showing a possible stepping stone between regulative/exploitative state and a social order that may be less regulative/exploitative. i.E. as a means of demonstrating that less intervention is better.
Torsten: I placed the thread on free trade zones merely as showing a possible stepping stone between regulative/exploitative state and a social order that may be less regulative/exploitative. i.E. as a means of demonstrating that less intervention is better.
If "Free Trade Zones" are a success, they will most likely be used to show that government is necessary for "free trade", not that less intervention is better.
If one were to establish a true free trade zone, it will most likely have to be underground or black market, and governments would want to wipe it out, regardless of its success, or especially because of its success.
fsk: DriftWood:So what can we do about it? Well, we can vote for loweer taxes and lower tariffs. You're missing the point of "market anarchism". Voting doesn't work; the election system is defective. All forms of taxation are theft, and cannot be justified by any amount of voting. Agorism is the only resistance strategy that isn't a waste of time. The bad guys aren't going to voluntarily give up their power to leech off the productivity of everyone else.
Market anarchism, is civil war.
Anarcho-capitalism is just another idealistic fantasy that can not work. Just like the communist fantasies could not work, neither can the anarcho-capitalist ones. They simply do not take human nature into account. I'll spell it out again, no laws are respected without an authority. There are no rights without someone with the power to physically enforce them. Anyone with power to enforce laws, has the power to also create laws. Anyone with the power to enforce law, needs a monopoly on violence to be able to do so. Competition in the area of violence is civil war. Eventually the meanest bully, or just the bully with the largest posse, will have competed their competitors off the market (aka killed them), or split the market between them (split the land into smaller countries). Their will, whatever it may be, will be the law of the land. The laws will be respected out of fear. However once there is a monopoly on violence, there is laws, police and peace. When there is peace people can trade, when people trade they grow wealthy, when people are wealthy they can bribe the authority to get more freedoms and eventually change the system to be less oppressive. The authority (with its monopoly on violence) will grow less oppressive, as it does not want to bite the hand that feeds it. It does not take all the wealth of the people, because that would be bleeding them dead. It just makes lots of small cuts, to keep them good and healthy cash cows. Imagine what would happen there was lots of competing law systems out there, and different police forces running around enforcing conflicting laws, for its customers. What would happen if a customer of one group killed a customer of another group, it might be considered a crime according to one law system but not the other. Even if it would have been considered a crime in both groups, the fact is that the killer and the victim belonged to different protections groups. And the killers protection group would have no reason to punish him as he had not killed one of their own customers. Anarcho-capitalism would lead into civil war.. just as surely as communism leads into authoritarianism. Cheers
Statism is intellectual cowardice.
Anarcho-capitalism is just another idealistic fantasy that can not work. Just like the communist fantasies could not work, neither can the anarcho-capitalist ones. They simply do not take human nature into account.
Minarchism is just another idealistic fantasy that cannot work, as it's socialism on a small scale. Ditto with statism. They simply do not take human nature into account.
I'll spell it out again, no laws are respected without an authority. There are no rights without someone with the power to physically enforce them. Anyone with power to enforce laws, has the power to also create laws. Anyone with the power to enforce law, needs a monopoly on violence to be able to do so. Competition in the area of violence is civil war.
Non sequitur, plus it violates the basic laws of economics.
Eventually the meanest bully, or just the bully with the largest posse, will have competed their competitors off the market (aka killed them), or split the market between them (split the land into smaller countries).
And just how will they do that?
Imagine what would happen there was lots of competing law systems out there, and different police forces running around enforcing conflicting laws, for its customers.
Golly gee! Imagine that! Imagine if there were lots of competing law systems out there! Oh wait...
Anarcho-capitalism would lead into civil war.. just as surely as communism leads into authoritarianism.
Indeed - hence minarchism will lead to socialism.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
DriftWood:Just like the communist fantasies could not work, neither can the anarcho-capitalist ones.
Communism doesn't work, but not for the reasons you gave. The USA is actually a communist country! If you carefully read the Communist Manifesto and compare it to the present USA, you'll see that the USA is, essentially, communist!
DriftWood:Their will, whatever it may be, will be the law of the land. The laws will be respected out of fear. However once there is a monopoly on violence, there is laws, police and peace. When there is peace people can trade, when people trade they grow wealthy, when people are wealthy they can bribe the authority to get more freedoms and eventually change the system to be less oppressive.
You're suggesting that people will bribe the authorities to gain freedom? If that's the case then why doesn't that happen now? Why is the exact opposite happening?
People will bribe the authorities for their own good.
What you're suggesting isn't a solution, it's just giving any company that may gain a monopoly on defense a headstart.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I think it was when i read some summary book of the wealth of nations.. that i came across an explanation of how the live owned surfs gained their freedom from their (war) lords. The automatic mechanism behind it just made so much sense. It went something like this:
The war lords controlled some territory. By fighting with other wars lords they haf gained a monopoly on violence over some specific piece of land. They considered everything on this land as belonging to them, the land itself, the farms, the animals, the people. The will of the lords was the law of the land. The lord could do whatever it wanted with its property, it could steal from and kill the people without much explanation. Anyway this relationship between the surfs and their lords was not competely one sided. Some surfs actually voluntarily gave themselves to the lords.. because as a surf you avoided starvation, and you got protected from being killed by other war lords. The surfs got protection from violence, and food. Being a slave, beats being dead. Anyways this sounds like a pretty horrible state off affairs. How did the surfs manage to break free of their slavery, how did that kind of society turn into the freer societies that are european countries today?
Thats the uplifting part.. okay, so the surfs no longer had to fear being killed, they had to work on the farm and give the food to the lord. They could feed themselves on some of the food that they grew. The lord could not stop this. All he could do is kill them if they ate some of the crops and if thge lord did that it would not have any farmers.. and the lords themselves would starve.. so the lord just raided and plundered the farmers once in a while, and took anything of value. The farmers started expecting this and voluntarily started gathering the food and put it on the lords doorstep. This way they would not get beaten or killed buring the raids. This method was also better for the war lords, as they could concentrate on killing other war lords, and expanding their territory, instead of killing and raiding their own farmers all the time. Well once the farmers had the power to collect the lords cut of the food.. well then they had the power to keep more to themselves, without the lord finding out. A slave will work harder for himself than his owner.. you cant really fight this as its just human nature to look out for number one first. The farmers started trading the stuff thy had when the lord was not looking.. trading creates wealth.. and as the farmers/merchants grew wealthier, more money was also given to the lord. This kept the lord happy and let the farmers and merchants do their thing. The farmers and merchansts grew wealthier wich meant that they could give a smaller and smaller cut of the profits to the lord.. to keep him passive. You see? Its an amazing reversal of power. Eventually the fate of the lords was so dependent on the farmer and merchants ability to grow wealth.. that the merchants had the lords eating out of their hands. That is how the serfs grew out of their slavery, and how the lords grew into servants. At this point the people did not kill their lords.. as they still neeed them the lords for the protections from violence services. There always needs to be someone with a monopoly on violence, and the pople will pay whoever this is protection money for it services (taxes). Without a monopoly on violence, there is not one law, not one country but many. Borders between countries are needed because, that is where one law system, one monopoly on violence stops, and another one begins. There can be no mixing, as that would be a conflict between different authorities, it would mean civil war.
It goes something like this. Anarchy -> Slavery -> Peace -> Trade -> Wealth -> Self ownership
You cant stop this amazing force of human nature. The simple fact that people look our for themselves first and foremost, that slaves will work harder for themselves than for their owners.. the simple fact of individuals selfishness given enough time, will lead to a society where all individuals have about the same amount of power and freedom.