Pericles
I am not sure why you accuse me of jingoism, which implies I am some sort of extreme nationalist without any care or concern for other nations. I am equally concerned for other nations in regard to the negative effects of free trade.

Why would a poor country who has up until now produced their own oranges (just for example) suddenly be inundated with oranges from a wealthier nation where often it is a case of surplus oranges being dumped at lower prices usually with the benefit (like the US/UK/Europe) of subisdised agricultural propping up the price at the farm gate.

Free trade agreements are not usually fair trade agreements. Poorer nations do not have the luxury of subsidised agriculture and the labour force is often uneducated and have no power to negotiate fair and safe working conditions.

Free trade is a misnomer - how can trade be free if the playing field is not level. Wages, work conditions and OH&S are ignored in this free trade euphoria. We seem to ignore those human rights issues for the furphy of cheaper goods for Western consumers.

Also any nation should have the right to refuse goods that require vast amounts of pesticide merely to get them safely through quarantine, or issues of governance (melamine in milk), provenance and food miles.

Do you see something hypocritical in global leaders discussing free trade and climate change in the same political rhetoric. How can transporting tonnes of food all over the world be assisting with reducing carbon when there is capacity for locally produced food.

In other words corporations are more interested in low wage countries to make higher profits - not usually to share this largesse with the consumer in any case.

I am not sure why you bought Aldi up - I did not mention Aldi.

Some light reading. :)

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147

There is plenty more if you Google 'free trade' or 'problems with free trade'.

Not sure where to start, pelican. Colour me confused

In one breath you have poor countries oppressed by rich countries selling low-cost products...

>>Why would a poor country who has up until now produced their own oranges (just for example) suddenly be inundated with oranges from a wealthier nation...<<

And in the next, you argue that low wages should not be exploited either...

>>Wages, work conditions and OH&S are ignored in this free trade euphoria. We seem to ignore those human rights issues for the furphy of cheaper goods for Western consumers.<<

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be anti-dumping laws, with teeth, that prevent rich countries from altering market conditions in the way you describe.

But anti-dumping laws work within a free trade environment, not a protectionist one.

Dumping produce into someone else's will distort the price.

But if I set up a protective tariff, I will also distort the price. Upwards. A seller in a protected market will always try to maximise his margins.

>>I am not sure why you bought Aldi up - I did not mention Aldi.<<

I was responding to Yabby. Who did bring up Aldi. But they would make a very good case study for you.

Incidentally, a more recent study on NAFTA's impact (2009) stated:

"NAFTA's impact on North American companies is clear. NAFTA was designed to promote economic growth by spurring competition in domestic markets and promoting investment from both domestic and foreign sources. It has worked. North American firms are now more efficient and productive. They have restructured to take advantage of economies of scale in production and intra-industry specialization"

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15790/

>>How can transporting tonnes of food all over the world be assisting with reducing carbon when there is capacity for locally produced food<<

Local produce will invariably be selected if it is price-competitive for the consumer. A carbon tax that exposes the extra cost of transport would highlight the "hidden" costs, and affect the end price accordingly.

There is already far too much trade regulation that disadvantages poor countries, without encouraging them to ring-fence their weak economies.

Pelican, I mentioned Aldi for good reasons. Your claim earlier in
this thread was that importers simply pocket extra profits from
imported food, rather then pass it on to the consumer. That is
clearly not the case, just ask Aldi.

In fact Coles and Woolies pass on lower costs too, but just in
ways you might not think. Long story, but its all about average
net margin, not one particular item.

The EU and US dumping, has little to do with free trade and everything
to do with their domestic politics. Under WTO rules, dumping is
illegal.

*How can transporting tonnes of food all over the world be assisting with reducing carbon when there is capacity for locally produced food.*

Oh that is quite possible! You forget that much of Europe and parts
of the US are snowed in for a part of the year. Stock need to be
kept indoors, flowers are grown in hothouses, burning oil and gas.
I read a study somewhere which showed that a leg of lamb grown in
NZ, where sheep eat pasture, even if carted half way around the world,
is far more c02 friendly, then one produced in Britain.

Global shipping is an incredibly efficient way of carting goods. If
you convert it back to c02 per kg, it is bugger all. That is why
we can ship a tonne of iron ore to China for around $14.50 a tonne,
which is what I would burn in fuel, if I carted it from here to Perth by 8 tonne truck.

By far the largest waste of fuel is housewives going down to the
shopping centre, to buy dinner for tonight. You might buy 2kg
of food and burn 2litres of fuel to do it.

As I pointed out earlier Pelican, you are an intelligent lady
Pelican, but you have simply not thought this topic through very
well :

Yabby
I don't think Australians buying garlic from China is assisting with carbon reduction when our climate zones allow us to produce garlic year round? If hothouse tomatoes were to consume more carbon than importing tomatoes from warmer climes then of course the argument for imports would be valid if one could prove that the energy from transportation is less than that of hothousing.

Or we could try something novel along the lines of eating seasonally (very 'Animal, Vegetable, Miracle' by Barbara Kingsolver). In Australia we don't have this problem having a large continent spread over a number of climate zones, but yes other countries may have issues with supply.

As I said I am not arguing against trade only that nations should be able to dictate their own terms not the terms set out by, in the main the bigger and wealthier nations. Each nation can negotiate on their terms to the mutual benefit of the importer and the exporter. Can there be a balance between free trade and protectionism to the mutual benefit of both parties? I believe there can.

"As I pointed out earlier Pelican, you are an intelligent lady
Pelican, but you have simply not thought this topic through very
well."

Me and thousands of others it seems Yabby. :)

http://www.tradewatch.org.au/

http://www.ifg.org/analysis/wto/cancun/mythtrade.htm

Pelican

I have been following this thread and have to say - excellent work! Despite the deliberate misunderstanding on the part of Pericles and the usual obstinance of Yabby, you have maintained a level of patience, logic and perseverance that I can only admire and envy.

To claim the 'free trade' is a fair and equal playing field between nations and corporations is equivalent to claiming that the local footy team has the same chance at winning the AFL Grand final as premier team Geelong. But that is only sport. Trade for goods, food and other produce is the right of all nations. In an ideal world poor nations would be able to self support rather than grow mass crops like palm oil for wealthier nations. The concept of 'Fair Trade' is an attempt to address these issues, however there remains far more 'back-room' dealing between nations like Australia and China or the USA and any of the Middle Eastern countries.

Pelican you have explained all this far more eloquently than I. Have you read much of Nobel Laureate, Elinor Ostrom's work on 'cooperative economics' (doesn't have to be an oxymoron)? Worth checking out.

Regards and admiration.

But Pelican, nothing is stopping anyone in Australia from growing
garlic. Those who do, have a ready market for it. In fact the
Australian garlic that I buy at Coles is commonly not available,
due to lack of supply. Consumers too, have a choice, as they should.

Food miles in garlic is a non issue, for sea transport is so efficient
compared to land transport and the tonnage of garlic is insignificant.
They grow some garlic in Esperance, but it would use more fuel
to truck it to Sydney, then carting it by sea from China.

The problem with every nation negotiating every item, is that politics
and lobbying soon overtake the more general interest and
big picture. For every bit of tariff protection for one select
group, is a cost to another group. Big business is far better at
lobbying then the public, so deals are done which cost everyone.

That is exactly why you have the debacle of Europe and agriculture,
or the hopeless situation we had in Austrlia, when we had huge
tariff barriers. All did was cripple efficient industries even
further, through even larger costs.

To understand free trade Pelican, you and Serverin need to get away
from the touchy feely websites and understand the fundamentals.

Why I am saying that is because of your examples of Nike, or
US/EU subsidies etc. They have little to do with the concept
of free trade, but are constantly raised by the touchy feely
brigade, who mix the whole lot into one large pot. They are
seperate issues.