I'm always curious to read what the mainstream press says about trade. They may be a little light on the details, but they have the ability to influence "the masses," which despite our respectable readership here at this blog, we probably don't. Here's Matt Yglesias, who is a widely read blogger, in a post commenting on the U.S. GSP system (which I'll get back to in the next post):
Far and away the most persuasive critique of the most recent round of proposed trade deals is that these agreements actually have relatively little to do with trade. Instead since all kinds of business regulations “affect” trade, you’ve got a lot of stuff about intellectual property rules, capital flows, privatization of government services, etc. It’s possible to make a case for these things, but you certainly can’t take the general “case for free trade” and then apply it across the board.
What interests me is how he seems to take what is a pretty typical critique (I think) of the current system a bit too far. He says "the most recent round of proposed trade deals" -- which I assume refers to the Doha round and/or various bilateral U.S. trade deals -- "have relatively little to do with trade." Instead, they have "a lot of stuff about intellectual property rules, capital flows, privatization of government services, etc."
Now, I agree that they do have "a lot of stuff about intellectual property rules," and depending exactly what he means, a bit of "stuff" about capital flows and privatization of government services. And I do think that all this "stuff" can be a distraction from what I would say is the core of trade agreements, which includes lowering tariffs, quotas and subsidies. But I cetainly wouldn't say that recent trade negotiations "have relatively little to do with trade." I'm pretty sure that tariffs, quotas and subsidies still come up quite a bit! The other "stuff" has grown, course, but these issues are still at the core.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that's what is being said in the "mainstream media." Perhaps that's part of the reason why, as noted in the last post, so many people think that trade agreements will lead to higher prices, not lower ones.
