Quote:
|
Now, on the argument that the different siphons hooked to the US to suck our economy and money away -- Moiraine mentioned this argued for MORE funding of the UN, not less. I disagree. The more I watch Ford move plants to Mexico, the more I watch environmental regs become lessened in the US to accomodate competition concerns (driven by free trade issues and the need to compete with dirty businesses in other nations), the more I want to see the US close its borders.
|
But TL, the outward flow of jobs has nothing to do with the WTO or the UN (if anything, the WTO is helping to keep jobs in the country - hence the popular protests about how 'unfair' it is). If a company believes that its cheaper to manufacture 'whizzogs' in Liberia - then they'll move their plant there regardless of the UN or the WTO.
Furthermore, what goes around comes around - should the US put up 'protective barriers', then other countries will do the same against US goods (and you only have to look at how the steel imports fiasco made things bad for other segments of the US export market -
without improving things for US steel manufacturers to see how counterproductive such measures are).
Furthermore, there are a number of countries (and the list is growing) which slap on an additional import tax on products which were produced in an unenvironmentally friendly way - so the reduction of environmental regulations in the production of certain goods is also counter-productive. Because with this, not only do you stink up your environment - but your product *still* costs the same as your competitor's when it reaches a third country.
The US economy's wealth is founded on its exports - so any kind of economic isolationism is bad for its health - in a major way.
[ 09-08-2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]