Alan Blinder is right, Sort Of

Alan Blinder argues that:

"Progressives should welcome freer trade because it's so much better than the alternative. Protection serves to entrench entrenched interest groups. We're supposed to be against that. Protectionism also amounts to legalized pickpocketing of the consumer, including those who can least afford it. We're supposed to be against that, too. Certain types of protectionism--especially for agriculture and the textile/apparel industries--have particularly pernicious effects on nations, e.g., in Africa, where people are on the edge of starvation. I certainly hope that we progressives are against that."

I agree that free trade is good, but the current system (i.e. WTO) we have in place has problems. Take the case of agricultural subsidies that the rich countries provide their agricultural sectors. Or the opening of developing countries to speculators, long before their financial sectors are stable enough. But I do agree that free trade can lift people out of poverty.

Top-flight economists like Professor Blinder need to come up with ways to change the current system, which is focused solely on profit. Besides profits, we need some emphasis on sustainability and social justice. Prince Charles highlighted this challenge in a recent speech in San Francisco:

"We have to accept that globalization comes at an alarming price for the future ... That price may be paid in terms of displaced rural communities ... and the destruction of social and cultural systems built up over many centuries."

In this blog we promote the idea that a small shift in our collective purchase power, say 0-20% of our spending, can help "Fair Trade" companies, thrive. Let's start with our 2005 Holiday spending.

If we focus on profits alone, we have a race to the bottom.



So I agree Free Trade is good, but Fair Trade is better. Why be satisfied if our collective purchase power can make things better?