|
Moreover, from and economics purist point-of-view, protectionism is bad for us all. If those islands in the mediterranean cannot compete with Ohio-based and Nicaragua-farmed Chiquita Banana, then it would be best for us all if they simply grew something they were better at - be it apples, grapes, whatever.
It's a notion of utility: why support an industry (via tarrifs on foreign competitors or subsidies on domestic producers, which are essentially the same thing) that cannot make money and stay afloat? The answer usually is "the jobs, silly, it's all the jobs." Well, yes transition from one economy to another is hard on the individuals at the moment - but better for the greater good in the long run.
Take Vermont's historical economies as a for instance. Though there have always been other products to come from VT (wood, for instance), the usage of farms in VT is a good picture of changing economies. First, sheep were produced there for local purposes - and shipped up and down the rivers of VT as far as Boston for sale. As railroads opened up, overcoming the transportation problems, the local rivers of VT became a non-issue, and Boston and New England could get their sheep goods from Wisconsin. Sheep farming largely dried up, and more farms began producing dairy. Cows like the climate of Vermont (cold). Sometime about 1970, it became cheaper to house cattle in air-conditioned warehouses in California rather than on hills in VT, so the "cold" advantage disappeared, meaning that only specialty dairy products (Cabot Cheese, B&J Ice Cream) could be supported in VT. Now, those farmers have over the past few decades adopted two new production types in Vermont: (1) eco-tourism (such as the Billings-Rockefeller farm in Woodstock, and such as selling farmland for little out-of-the-way retreats and ski slopes), and electronics manufacturing (e.g. IBM) (which is where many farm families have sought work).
While Vermont's model is odd indeed, it shows how the market causes the greatest utility use of the land/people/resources. Messing with this is like mucking with the environment, IMHO: it's combating nature herself, who always wins in the end.
Now, let's keep in mind that "dumping" is bad. If Chiquita can sell for less and make more profit than those small producers in the EU market, that's one thing. But, if Chiquita is taking a loss just to out-last those small producers and gain a monopoly, it is a Very Bad Thing (TM) and should be illegal under the WTO rules.
And Thorfinn, the notion of further trade restrictions to make up for past wrongs is simply what the nations agreed on as a proper punishment. The US wins a beef-hormone case, the EU refuses to relent, so the US gets to put tarrifs on Ducati motorcycles to make up for the difference. Ideally, Ducati and other local mfgr's will go to their government, and the government will face pressure from all sides to right the wrong (the tariff or restriction).
__________________
 
|