Display:
Jerome a Paris:
And we impose safety requirements on all the goods we use (locally manufactured or imported), so that they are not toxic, dangerous or polluting - how would a carbon content norm - or tax - be any different? How is that agaisnt trade if it applies to all? Quite the opposite, it is fair to apply it to imports as well.

How is this different to applying Irish minimum wage laws to our Chinese imports - taxing them at the difference between Irish and Chinese wage rates for the labour content proportion of the product?  One regulation promotes public health, one promotes sustainability, and another promotes equity and avoidance of labour exploitation.  Surely trade is all about exploiting such "competitive advantages" at the expense of the environment or workers.  Or is it that we don't care about the Chinese sweatshops, but their pollution is now harming OUR environment as well?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good idea. Except we should probably apply the tax at some kind of purchase parity thingi. Otherwise, good idea. Traditional protection of the labour market. Not a very new concept, just fallen out of favour by the ones that make money hand over fist in the new model.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series