by Ian Fletcher Dan has again dragged irrelevant issues into this debate; I shall let the reader judge whether I am guilty of Maoism! Dan’s conflation of protectionism with communism and related economic pathologies is telling: free traders of Dan's variety (ideologically-committed libertarians) habitually roll up

by Daniel Griswold As we wrap up our debate, let me grant Ian’s point that free trade alone is not a magic bullet that by itself delivers prosperity. Economic success also depends on secure property rights, the rule of law, stable money, functioning domestic markets, and moderate levels of

Remember a few weeks ago when Senator Arlen Specter asked Obama the following: The first part of my question is, would you support more effective remedies to allow injured parties -- unions which lose jobs, companies which lose profits -- by endorsing a judicial remedy, if not in U.S. courts perhaps

Ian Fletcher Some of Dan’s arguments continue to be  mere distractions.  Taking  North Korea and Burma as proof of the harm of a no-trade (or close to it) policy falls down on the fact that North Korea has a communist economy and Burma a quasi-socialist state-controlled

by Daniel Griswold Free Trade has endured since Adam Smith as a robust theory, and it has proven itself in practice across the decades as being superior to government restrictions. There is nothing new in Ian’s theoretical critique of free trade. In a 1996 book, Against the Tide: An

Speaking of investor-state disputes, as I was yesterday, it looks like many of the big names in the field will be assembling for a conference soon: On March 29, 2010, Washington and Lee School of Law will host a Joint Symposium with the United Nations Conference on Trade and

Multiple branches of government can be a real pain sometimes. In the ongoing WTO EC - IT Products dispute (DS375, and also DS376 and DS377 brought by Japan and Chinese Taipei), the U.S. (that is, USTR) argued that the EC's reclassification of certain monitors in a way that

It's not a sophisticated legal analysis, but I found this blogger's points to be interesting in terms of how non-specialists see the scope of trade rules: When business people are in doubt, they can always claim unfair trade in order to tap government diplomats and