ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

jekbradbury said 06/12, 03:31 PM
"Unethical" can be defined in many ways. But I think most would agree that any action that hurts those who have no say in the action is unethical, especially if it affects those who cannot fight back. Consider the example of ethanol. In the United States, ethanol for fuel is produced from corn, an important food crop, and the increase in American ethanol production over the past few years has played a part in the recent increase in food prices. Any increase in food prices affects low-income consumers through the global market, causing people to be unable to afford food they could before, causing them to suffer from malnutrition or starvation. At the same time, Brazil produces ethanol with a cheaper process from a crop (sugarcane) that is not an important part of the diet of developing countries. The United States has trade laws and farm laws that subsidize the cost of American ethanol by 55 cents a gallon and add a 50 cent per gallon tariff to Brazilian ethanol, which would otherwise be cheaper. Add this to recent findings that corn-based ethanol is not as carbon-neutral as first thought, and the US's policy is unethical towards both developing countries and the environment.

jekbradbury said 06/14, 10:10 AM
First of all, "propping up failing national banks, or factories to save jobs" is not related to farm subsidies or trade policy. Tradewise, protectionism is a way of forcing consumers and corporations to buy domestic, rather than foreign, goods. It is an accepted economic principle that producing something can cost a different amount in different locations, so if an item or commodity costs more domestically, it is the domestic consumer that is hurt, in addition to the foreign producer. The only party that benefits is the government, the same party which created the policy in the first place. That is unquestionably an unethical situation.

jekbradbury said 06/28, 08:42 PM
"Many would rather that domestic goods are more available and desirable on the free-market than those produced without the aid of domestic labour, and protectionism allows for this." Many would like to be able to afford their necessities, ie have their necessities available at the lowest price possible. Protectionism does not allow for this. By removing protectionist barriers, you would allow for necessities to be more affordable here to those who can barely afford them, and you would let fewer people in other countries live in poverty.