On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:47:34 GMT, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
That's an interesting point, and the EU sometimes tries to draw parallels
between the countries of Europe and the states of the US. They do that when
it helps support one specious argument or another. g
As they integrate economically, it makes some sense. The more they
standardize their byzantine system and consolidate all those
bureaucrats into a lesser number in Brussels, the more they will save.
That benefits those of us trying to export there, too. Instead of
trying to get safety agency approvals from a dozen agencies (at
$thousands each), one will do for all the countries of Europe (like UL
or CSA or ETL works for the US and Canada). It's mostly all positive,
as there's little argument that, say, Germany needs safer products
than Italy, even if the standards may have been written that way. The
cost savings of making a crappier product just for Italy are just not
worth it. It might be different if you were talking about a totally
different economic level, say in India, where they are happy to take
the dregs of even Chinese manufacturing (30% faulty product in one
case I'm aware of, but the unit cost was still okay because the labor
to sort the bad ones out was considered negligible even though the
product cost only 17 cents each!).
But this is one country, albeit a large one. There are no trade barriers of
any kind between the states -- 'never have been.
Mmm.. are there not licensing barriers for Professional Engineers,
construction contractors and such like? I think there are *some*
barriers, just not that many. NAFTA put most goods and *some* services
in that category except for those items that are being "managed"
between the nations of North America. NAFTA also allows many
professionals to work in any of the countries with negligible
paperwork. The *big* difference is that ordinary Joes cannot easily
move to where there are jobs or other economic opportunity, even if
they wanted to.
The specialization and
comparative-advantage issues are built right into our industrial- and total
economic structure. We all operate under the same government and the same
set of federal taxes and laws. The only variations are in local taxes, and
that's only a marginally competitive issue among the states, used to attract
business or not. So there aren't many meaningful parallels that can be drawn
between the states of the US and separate countries that trade with each
other.
I think there are useful parallels. One is that economic disparity
continues even when goods, services and people can move with almost
complete freedom. So we can probably expect Portugal to be poorer than
Switzerland for the foreseeable future.
Whether the EU will ever achieve that level of economic integration is
questionable. As you know, there are strong proponents on both sides.
Yes.
I think the important underlying points are that there is no free trade;
there is no fair trade; each country engages in trade for its own advantage;
and the operating theory, around the world, is that trade is good for
everyone's economy.
;-) Maybe not so good for many individuals, even though the GDP
per-capita looks good.
So everyone tries to get as much trade going as they can, without paying any
more than they have to for it. When you look at the totally free trade
between the states of the US, you can draw the conclusion that there *is* no
price to be paid for free trade.
Or maybe Americans don't tend to analyze the negative points because
it's just assumed that all states are in it together. For example, the
restructuring that led a lot of the northeastern manufacturing into
the sunbelt might not have happened if there had been a border in
there. That would have resulted in a different set of winners and
losers. Much has been written about the effects of how cities are
funded, and that's very much affected by invisible administrative
borders (because of taxation issues).
But, in fact, that isn't the case. In the
US, the costs are invisible, and are built into the structure. We see only
the benefits, which are considerable. The situation isn't necessarily the
same between nations. Trade has a powerful influence on a country's social
structure. Internal trade in the US is going on all within a single country.
Different situation.
I see many, many shades of gray (or is it grey?) there. I put a number
on the shade when I decide how much more (if any) I'm willing to pay
to get an equivalent product from different suppliers, based on their
location and the location of their control or ownership. I'm more
likely to want to deal with fair traders, and less with those who are
costing me money.
BTW, one of the issues that's bothering me is that the current system
(international trade, NGOs, resource pricing) tends to give the
advantage to the biggest consumer and whoever has the most economic
power and growth. That's fine so long as you happen to be the dominant
top dog, but it could turn against you if others start competing and
outbidding. We may live long enough to see this happen in an obvious
way, but it's already happening subtly.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com