|
Just because you don't like a Treaty system doesn't mean you leave it. You renegotiate. And, hopefully, the next round of negotiation will not fail so horribly as Cancun did.
On certain externalities -- like my two big ones, labor and environment -- a "race to the bottom" is encouraged by the current WTO provisions.
Where the economies of scale make labor cheaper in Bangladesh, there is little problem -- that's economics. In fact, while it may be painful to make the transition (e.g. a generation of laborers losing jobs in the U.S.), the astute economist would argue that if something is cheaper to make in Bangladesh, the whole world maximizes economic utility by having the thing made in Bangladesh.
But, where something is cheaper to be made in Bangladesh because there are little or no labor standards, that is unfair. Rather than reward the nation that tries to use its prosperity to increase its standards, the system instead rewards the nation with the lower standards. That's the opposite of what we as a world society want, right?
So, the US can't force Bangladesh to adopt its labor standards, but it would be fair to place tarrifs on goods from Bangladesh to make up for the benefit Bangladesh gains by using lower standards. (Note: only the benefits of using lower standards, and not every other factor that may make the product's price lower when coming from Bangladesh.)
This evens the playing field. It allows a country wanting to adopt higher standards (which cost the industries money) to not have those higher standards adversely affect its product sales. This also encourages WTO countries to adopt fair labor standards of some kind to avoid the tarriff. That makes people a bit better off in Bangladesh, quality of life increases a wee bit, and we continue to advance as a global society rather than regress.
BIG NOTE: I don't know the labor standards in Bangladesh, and just used it as an example for discussion purposes.
__________________
 
|