DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
Printer friendly version of: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/en/discussion/index.php?m=2047

Prosperity

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.


 
Previous Topic |  All Topics |  Start Topic  | Next Topic

End to International Trade

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-11 15:58:26


US military interests follow their economic interests.

Terrorism is driven by the military presence/influence of the US and allies in all regions of the globe.

Would we bring peace to the world by deliberately ending trade with most nations of the world?

If we remove our economic interest from other regions of the world, then we could remove our military presence from other regions and eliminate the resentment created by such presence.

Let's say we decide to trade within North America, and willing European countries and allow the rest of the world to develop their own systems of international trade without the contaminating influence of our "capitalist system".

Does anyone think this might be helpful?

Reply to this message

End to International Trade

Contributor: critictrue1

Date: 2003-03-12 08:54:31


Trade is probably a positive step to promoting co-operation. In these cases we are not talking about trade we are talking about liberating the people of their natural resources and supporting multinationals in obtaining cheap labour in unsafe/unhealthy conditions and that is why military support is needed.

Reply to this message

End to International Trade

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-12 16:36:36


So, you want trade, just not trade conducted by multinationals.

Unhealthy working conditions are the responsibility of the government of that country.

How natural resources are used by a country is the responsibility of the government of that country.

I think trade is a positive step too, but it just appears to be a complex problem in which each government has a hand - not just our governments, but all governments.

Reply to this message

End to International Trade

Contributor: banquosghost

Date: 2003-03-12 20:51:59


You really ought to get to your local library and get a copy of this book. Systems of Survival:
A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics
by Jane Jacobs

The following was copied from http://www.ecobooks.com/systems.htm

MORAL SYNDROME A
Shun force
Come to voluntary agreements
Be honest
Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Compete
Respect contracts
Use initiative and enterprise
Be open to inventiveness and novelty
Be efficient
Promote comfort and convenience
Dissent for the sake of the task
Invest for productive purposes
Be industrious
Be thrifty
Be optimistic

MORAL SYNDROME B
Shun trading
Exert prowess
Be obedient and disciplined
Adhere to tradition
Respect hierarchy
Be loyal
Take vengeance
Deceive for the sake of the task
Make rich use of leisure
Be ostentatious
Dispense largesse
Be exclusive
Show fortitude
Be fatalistic
Treasure honor

She characterizes "A" as "Traders" and "B" as "Guardians".

There's almost no way short of a full dissertation to do full credit to the work. Just read it. It's fascinating and more relevant than I can say.

Reply to this message

End to International Trade

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-13 15:26:21


I will give it a look. Sounds interesting!

Reply to this message

End to International Trade

Contributor: RCGGILLIS

Date: 2003-04-07 21:22:44


Ever hear the expression that no two nations that each had Mcdonald's have ever gone to war?

Interconnecting economies are less likely to resort to violence/conflict, they need each other for trade and tend to have more ways in which to communicate different policies.

Reply to this message

End to International Trade

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-04-08 13:14:40


I'll admit, my point is that international trade will force us to be active players in the world.

I've read that people think we should expand trade with China, not the US. But, increased trade with China will not affect our trade volumes with the US as they do not have a competing set of goods and services to offer. Increased trade with China will kill our trade with central America.

I've read that this war is all about oil. Oil is a fundamental factor in this war. But, it is because of oil that Saddam has the buying power he does. Iraqi oil should make Iraqi citizens some of the richest in the world - but they are closer to the poorest. This should make rational people sick to their stomach.

Oil will not be around as an economic commodity in 100 years from now. The miracle of Iraq's oil wealth will have been squandered on weapons and mafia movies while generations of Iraqis suffer.

Trade necessitates an active role in the world.

Reply to this message

Previous Topic |  All Topics |  Start Topic  | Next Topic
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca