Time to demand Fair Trade!

[urbanfan89]

If I would have said industrialized would that make you feel better? I mean come on... And nowhere did I say send Chinese workers back to any farm. I'm saying lift them up by pressuring China to increase worker standards! You're making a false argument without even considering what I'm saying. If all you are going to do is ignore what I say, and speak on my behalf and force words in my mouth, so be it.

The reality is that I support trade, and without it think this world would be a sad place. We need to intermingle, share cultures, and trade goods and services. Our world is simply better off with exchanges of all kinds.

But the laws we have on the books right now need to be highly edited and greatly altered. We can lift people up in the 3rd world, in developing nations like China as well, and also continue trade at the same time. There doesn't have to be this fake choice between no trade and totally corporate controlled trade laws that are really anything but free.

Yes, it's true that much of what we have is totally unacceptable and should not be allowed anywhere in the world. It's also true that every country that has developed to date has gone through a period of tough and cruel industrialization, something that is often ignored by the self-righteous in the west.

Besides, I hope that we have learnt from GWB that you simply can't unilaterally take action and hope everyone else will do as you say. Treat them as partners instead of enemies, and perhaps then they will listen. Just a thought.

I mean we're talking about dealing with fixed currencies, highly questionable product quality, etc. I think the least we can do if a nation is going to fix its currency is to apply a fair tariff on any import to match the currency fixing. Free trade isn't free when one nation fixes its currency and the others are on a market that adjusts fairly.

So do you have any objection to the fact that Arab countries fix their currencies in order to make fuel cheaper for YOU?

Or perhaps western governments should stop coddling the agriculture sector which already makes billions in profits (and hence allow it to undersell local farmers in developing countries and contribute to much more serious starvation), before complaining about other countries building up their industrial sector.

Maybe the fact that before WW1 and between WW2 and the oil shock all the world's market economies pegged their currencies (first through gold/silver and then through the USD) will give some perspective.

Anyways, currency pegs lose their relevance once the lack of idle resources in those countries provokes inflation. Wages are rising at double digit rates in China, and workers are now much harder to find. What's there not to like?

I think revenue via tariffs for products coming from currency-fixed states is a great way for government to get much needed revenue, balance trade, and avoid taxing consumers incomes so strongly.

None of the manufacturing-dependent Asian countries peg their currencies to anything else.

Many, many years ago governments around the world received more revenue from tariffs than any other method, and there used to be virtually no income tax on many people. Today we're pro-corporate and anti-individual.

Ah, yes. Back in 1900, when the state was very small (and hence required very few taxes) and didn't care about public health care or social benefits or free schools or clean drinking water, when child labour and cartels were rampant, wages were low, and workplaces were dangerous. Back in the days...

I'd like to see us place some emphasis on human rights for a change.

The average Chinese/Indian/Brazilian/Indonesian/etc has far better human rights than, say, 30 years ago. What with massively reduced poverty and hunger levels. By opening up their economies, they have started an unstoppable and accelerating train.

I don't agree with the false argument that we have to choose to abuse developing nation's workers or not trade at all. There's a better way that doesn't fit into this box the extreme corporate traders have created. The debate has other points of view to be considered, and its obvious you're not someone who is willing to consider another totally valid viewpoint.

So what exactly is this better way? Demand that China impose a minimum wage of $8/hour? Send cash to Africa and find it in a secret Zürich bank account? The responsibility for the problems in trade policy lies squarely with the developed world with its double standards.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think one can argue for a minimum wage in developing countries. Basic economics would argue that low wages are their economic advantage since they lack other essentials: productivity, capital, etc. We shouldn't forget that a large part of our wealth in the West is because of our extremely high productivity.

I am all for better labour and environmental standard. But I disagree that treating worker's well and ensuring their safety has anything to do with their wages. It should be noted that western multi-nationals operating in developing countries often pay quite well. I have relatives who work professional jobs in India at Western multi-nationals and they get wages that are significantly higher than average for India and significantly lower than that of a Westerner. Here a 10 dollar an hour call centre job is considered slavery. In India, call centre workers get paid the equivalent of 5-6 dollars an hour and it's considered a privileged job.

Those advocating for 'fair trade' should be careful not to use that as an excuse to rob developing nations of the opportunity to industrialize, simply because westerners are afraid of a little competition.

 

[Whoaccio]

Great, fair trade. Because nothing helps developing economies like implementing artificial price floors on their products! The entire premise of fair trade as a tool to help the developing world is a bit humorous, and I often wonder whether or not it's proponents are arguing on behalf of misplaced idealism or cynical self interest. It is no coincidence that "fair trade" continually seems to have the biggest support base amongst western labor groups who don't like competition.

Fair trade picks up on some legitimate issues and interpret the occasional market failure and mercantilist policy and draw the odd conclusion that, in situations where free trade doesn't exist and conditions worsen, we should actively encourage less free trade. It doesn't make any sense. The lessons on international development have been crystal clear since WWII. Countries that have accepted foreign investment and the status quo (warts and all) have benefited dramatically. China, S. Korea, India, Singapore, Chile, Brazil, Iceland, Ireland and the list just goes on. Free trade works. Developed countries for their part have done just fine from trade liberalization. Suffice to say, I like my Nike's from Vietnam. I would actually rather buy from Vietnam even if the price were equal (which it never is) just on the basis that at least the money would be going to someone that actually needs it as opposed to someone with a union contract.

The Economist ran an article a few years ago on outsourcing in Nepal. Nike had some contract work involving children in sweatshops, nothing pretty. Once the "fair trade" types in the West got a hold of this, they boycotted until Nike shut down the factory. All the Westerners rejoiced, now they could buy cheap goods with a clean conscience. Meanwhile, while the same soon to be Hipsters were rejoicing their victory over the corporate Memnon Nike, the entire town had gone destitute. With their only source of employment gone, the entire town in Nepal was forced into poverty (starving to death poverty, not Jack Layton poverty). Way to go!

If anybody in the West gave a rat's ass over protecting the 3rd world instead of their guilt-riddled consience they would be pushing to liberalize agricultural subsidies in industrialized countries. The examples here are egregious. The US subsidizing domestic corn fructose producers by billions of dollars while the entire Carribean is inundated with low cost sugar cane it can't move because no Western country has the balls to tell its farmers to grow up. Or Europe, where 46% of the EU's budget goes to making sure inefficient farmers in Champagne don't have to face any competition from N. Africa. Maybe Japan, which subsidizes it's rice crops for nearly their entire value while farmers in China and S.E. Asia cant get any capital to fund improvements in their farms. The OECD countries spend more in agricultural subsidies than the entire continent of Africa's GDP! They are literally paying people in Europe to not plant crops!

 

[Whoaccio]

Its not a good argument to say that the Chinese are better off sewing jeans 12 hours a day for a few dollars today than they were 30 years ago.

Its less of an argument and more of a fact. Need you be reminded of the decades of double digit growth?

 

[Dichotomy]

Who's you to say which countries are "civilized" and which aren't?

So by sending those millions of Chinese factory workers back to the farm making $300 a year, you're improving their lives?

I'd like to see an alternative to the status quo, but no country has ever developed without a period of dirty and cruel industrialization. Except Iceland, but now they're paying the price.

My favorite nihilistic argument. All forward momentum must stop because 'we' have commited atrocities in the past; therefore, we must commit cultural/political suicide.

There has never been a time in known history that an entire Civilization has bent over and taken it up the a$s like the West is doing today.

There is a fine line between altruism and suicide.

 

[kEiThZ]

Whoaccio,

Exactly right. As a person who was raised abroad, I often wonder if the cries of fair trade are merely a new form of economic colonialism from the western left. Instead of giving developing nations a hand up they want to keep them dependent on hand outs. While few would disagree with improved labour and environmental standards, taking away the one advantage developing countries have (low wages) is literally stealing the bread from their mouths.

 

[afransen]

Great, fair trade. Because nothing helps developing economies like implementing artificial price floors on their products! The entire premise of fair trade as a tool to help the developing world is a bit humorous, and I often wonder whether or not it's proponents are arguing on behalf of misplaced idealism or cynical self interest. It is no coincidence that "fair trade" continually seems to have the biggest support base amongst western labor groups who don't like competition.

Fair trade picks up on some legitimate issues and interpret the occasional market failure and mercantilist policy and draw the odd conclusion that, in situations where free trade doesn't exist and conditions worsen, we should actively encourage less free trade. It doesn't make any sense. The lessons on international development have been crystal clear since WWII. Countries that have accepted foreign investment and the status quo (warts and all) have benefited dramatically. China, S. Korea, India, Singapore, Chile, Brazil, Iceland, Ireland and the list just goes on. Free trade works. Developed countries for their part have done just fine from trade liberalization. Suffice to say, I like my Nike's from Vietnam. I would actually rather buy from Vietnam even if the price were equal (which it never is) just on the basis that at least the money would be going to someone that actually needs it as opposed to someone with a union contract.

The Economist ran an article a few years ago on outsourcing in Nepal. Nike had some contract work involving children in sweatshops, nothing pretty. Once the "fair trade" types in the West got a hold of this, they boycotted until Nike shut down the factory. All the Westerners rejoiced, now they could buy cheap goods with a clean conscience. Meanwhile, while the same soon to be Hipsters were rejoicing their victory over the corporate Memnon Nike, the entire town had gone destitute. With their only source of employment gone, the entire town in Nepal was forced into poverty (starving to death poverty, not Jack Layton poverty). Way to go!

If anybody in the West gave a rat's ass over protecting the 3rd world instead of their guilt-riddled consience they would be pushing to liberalize agricultural subsidies in industrialized countries. The examples here are egregious. The US subsidizing domestic corn fructose producers by billions of dollars while the entire Carribean is inundated with low cost sugar cane it can't move because no Western country has the balls to tell its farmers to grow up. Or Europe, where 46% of the EU's budget goes to making sure inefficient farmers in Champagne don't have to face any competition from N. Africa. Maybe Japan, which subsidizes it's rice crops for nearly their entire value while farmers in China and S.E. Asia cant get any capital to fund improvements in their farms. The OECD countries spend more in agricultural subsidies than the entire continent of Africa's GDP! They are literally paying people in Europe to not plant crops!

The US also pays farmers to leave land fallow.

I agree, the whole agricultural subsidy scheme is a far worse crime against the developing world than sweatshops or 'low' wages.

 

[Brandon716]

There are many points to be made for all the talk being thrown around.

Trade is about more than just China, but the Chinese story isn't as grand as many people might think when talking about their economy. Most Chinese immigrants I know in North America despise the Chinese government, hence why they came over here many times, and wouldn't mind some basic tariffs being instituted in western nations to offset the trade imbalance. I'm going off what Chinese immigrants have told me as much as my own beliefs...

Now in regards to tariffs, I think if a nation fixes currency or is found to have child labor abuse or is found to have very poor working conditions, its not unfair to have a 10 or 15% tariff on goods coming from the nation in question.

To be honest, I'm not sure a 10-15% tariff would have much of an effect on trade, it certainly wouldn't stop trade, but it WOULD make competitors in Canada and other western nations more competitive in an environment with worker abuse from developing and 3rd world nations.

That 10-15% tariff can help fund programs we cherish in the advanced world, like quality health care for all, child care, education grants instead of loans, new infrastructure. Even if it doesn't encourage good behavior in the nation we're trading with that abuses workers, at least we're getting a net benefit. Its not bad to look after yourself. I don't think supporting the 3rd world and developing nations through trade has to be a scenario where you can't look at your own interests some.

So there's a net benefit, you get more funding ability for needed programs in Canada, and while the trade imbalance isn't exactly balanced (devalued currency worth not even 50% of what it should be isn't going to be offset with even a 20% tariff for example), it will at least level the playing field so that not every last factory in Canada or other western nations will go bankrupt trying to compete.

Its really a win-win situation for everyone, because with a campaign to try and get developing nations to treat their workers more fairly, combined with a tariff, it might actually have an effect down the road for the workers in the 3rd world and developing world. If not, at least the west isn't selling its soul away with deficit on programs we hold dear so that we have health and education and opportunity for all.

Its obvious many of you on here don't listen to a single word anyone says and you just stick to the numbers and say because China has X percent growth its perfect.... Its not really an argument IMO, its a cop out.

The reality is far different from the cop out arguments I've been reading.

 

[afransen]

That 10-15% tariff can help fund programs we cherish in the advanced world, like quality health care for all, child care, education grants instead of loans, new infrastructure. Even if it doesn't encourage good behavior in the nation we're trading with that abuses workers, at least we're getting a net benefit. Its not bad to look after yourself. I don't think supporting the 3rd world and developing nations through trade has to be a scenario where you can't look at your own interests some.

Okay. The problem with this is that tariffs punish Canadian consumers as much or possibly more than the foreign producer.

I read an interesting analysis that the cost of protectionism of the US car market cost the US government and consumers enough to pay every employee of GM $100,000 annually. It's a fallacy to suggest that you're punishing foreigners and getting the magical tax revenue that doesn't impose negative effects on the domestic economy.

 

[Whoaccio]

That 10-15% tariff can help fund programs we cherish in the advanced world, like quality health care for all, child care, education grants instead of loans, new infrastructure. Even if it doesn't encourage good behavior in the nation we're trading with that abuses workers, at least we're getting a net benefit. Its not bad to look after yourself. I don't think supporting the 3rd world and developing nations through trade has to be a scenario where you can't look at your own interests some.

1.) This comes down to a question of purpose. If you are designing a car, would you try to build the thing to do you're laundry? It sounds like an absurd provision, but that is what you are arguing for. The economy does what it does best, and that is stimulate production and wealth. If society wants to achieve societal goals (like healthcare), which I agree it should, society should pay for it.

2.) Technically, it is not a "net benefit." either. The current system is net good, hence why we do it. If you imposed a tariff against imported goods it would benefit domestic producers, but it would punish domestic consumers more than this margin. (see graph below)

3.) You never thought of the poor child laborer though. Honestly, why do you think child labor exists and has always existed? Who do you think it is helping if you tariff these kids out of a job? What will they do? Buy fair-trade espressos and sit on it?

 

[urbanfan89]

There has never been a time in known history that an entire Civilization has bent over and taken it up the a$s like the West is doing today.

If that's the case your attention span is as short as a fly's.

Trade is about more than just China, but the Chinese story isn't as grand as many people might think when talking about their economy. Most Chinese immigrants I know in North America despise the Chinese government, hence why they came over here many times, and wouldn't mind some basic tariffs being instituted in western nations to offset the trade imbalance. I'm going off what Chinese immigrants have told me as much as my own beliefs...

First, the percentage of Chinese immigrants who come over for political reasons is very small (yes, everyone despises the Beijing leadership, but few people make it a raison d'être). Second, imposing tariffs for the sake of offsetting the trade imbalance is a proved failure. Just ask Smoot and Hawley. Third, don't rely on anecdotal evidence. Fourth, this isn't the Cold War with the need to punish the Evil Commie Empire.

Now in regards to tariffs, I think if a nation fixes currency or is found to have child labor abuse or is found to have very poor working conditions, its not unfair to have a 10 or 15% tariff on goods coming from the nation in question.

To be honest, I'm not sure a 10-15% tariff would have much of an effect on trade, it certainly wouldn't stop trade, but it WOULD make competitors in Canada and other western nations more competitive in an environment with worker abuse from developing and 3rd world nations.

First, see my post above regarding currency fixing. Second, if you want to make Canada competitive, it's best to, say, promote better exports rather than to fearfully shrink into a cocoon. You know, build a high-end manufacturing sector like Germany. Third, what do you think will happen to those who currently work 12 hours a day for $1000 per year? Sing Koombaya around a campfire?

That 10-15% tariff can help fund programs we cherish in the advanced world, like quality health care for all, child care, education grants instead of loans, new infrastructure. Even if it doesn't encourage good behavior in the nation we're trading with that abuses workers, at least we're getting a net benefit. Its not bad to look after yourself. I don't think supporting the 3rd world and developing nations through trade has to be a scenario where you can't look at your own interests some.

There are a thousand better ways to raise tax revenue than to impose tariffs. Like not giving 50 billion in tax breaks to the tar sands of Alberta, for one. Or not wasting 20 billion in Afghanistan for a reason no one is sure.

Its really a win-win situation for everyone, because with a campaign to try and get developing nations to treat their workers more fairly, combined with a tariff, it might actually have an effect down the road for the workers in the 3rd world and developing world.

You'd think that we've learnt from GWB that imposing your own actions and hoping others will fall into line is not a good strategy.

If not, at least the west isn't selling its soul away with deficit on programs we hold dear so that we have health and education and opportunity for all.

I think if we just stop giving 50 billion to Alberta tar sands we'll have more than enough for all the social programs imaginable and a sizeable tax cut. It's win-win-win-lose (for Steve, of course).

Its obvious many of you on here don't listen to a single word anyone says and you just stick to the numbers and say because China has X percent growth its perfect.... Its not really an argument IMO, its a cop out.

Just ask yourself again: what's the alternative? You keep saying there's another way without explaining it. Why is it that countries that promoted trade and investment have done far better than those who relied on charity? If anything it's the west that should stop dumping its agriculture products onto those countries, because those in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[Brandon716]

A simple 5% tariff on goods from nations that refuse to institute fair wages and better working conditions and product quality requirements may not change the other nations' behavior, but its worth trying. There is value in western nations saying we disapprove of certain behavior such as the abuse of workers and that we'll apply a simple penalty for such behavior. We in the west need to have funding for our own programs and if we have to compete against such abuse, its only fair. At the end of a day the budget has to have funding sources.

And a 5 to 15% tariff can go a long way towards funding health care, child care, education, and other important programs people need. Especially when trying to compete against nations with none of the above.

This isn't rocket science, and I've taken micro and macro econ before. The charts and the cost-benefit analysis of having a fair tariff from nations that abuse workers is right on target if you aren't taxing like 80% or some ridiculous amount. Even a tariff as high as 15% will have minimal effect on trade generally speaking. What it does is say we disapprove of paying workers next to nothing and paying few or no benefits. And it creates a huge revenue source so that we can afford those benefits here. Its a win-win situation. It also allows the government to tax productivity and income less, and corporate taxes could remain low so that business remains attractive instead of going offshore.

We're facing a new generation, the 21st century just began. Its time we start taxing bad behaviors and start rewarding good work. Lowering income taxes and creating a carbon tax and raising small tariffs again on imports from nations that abuse workers is a good start to modernize tax codes. Taxing a bad, such as carbon emissions, is an ingenious idea. Taxing a bad, such as imports from workers who are abused and have no health insurance, places a penalty on that bad behavior of the businesses and governments offshore that cannot be controlled, while simultaneously providing funding for services that Canadians would cherish.

Most of the arguments on the other side that you guys are arguing for sound like old conservative (small c) policies that were in the books in the 1950's and implemented in the 1970's and 1980's. They haven't worked out that well considering the current worldwide economic meltdown. If all we can make money on in the west is trading financial loans around and inflating housing costs, there isn't much wealth to be created anymore. There certainly won't be funding for programs we all value a great deal if we don't redesign our tax revenue system with a new fairness doctrine.

 

[Glen]

Yes, it's true that much of what we have is totally unacceptable and should not be allowed anywhere in the world. It's also true that every country that has developed to date has gone through a period of tough and cruel industrialization, something that is often ignored by the self-righteous in the west.

There is a world of difference between the what is happening today and what happen during the time when the west industrialized. When it comes to pollution, back then, there was no alternatives and a general lack of awareness of the consequences. Where the argument that that the west benefited from 'dirty' industrialization and therefore developing countries should be able to also fails is that when the west did it it was for their own consumption. We did not use slave labour and dirty energy consumption to flood China, India et al. with cheap western goods because they did not allow there own industries to behave in such a manner. Yet that is exactly what we are doing today. If you have restrictions on local producers which you do not apply to imports, companies will take advantage of it. Pollution by proxy just moves the source farther away. Unfortunately it takes jobs with it.

Or perhaps western governments should stop coddling the agriculture sector which already makes billions in profits (and hence allow it to undersell local farmers in developing countries and contribute to much more serious starvation), before complaining about other countries building up their industrial sector.

Yes western governments coddle the agriculture industry. As they do most industries and professions. In Canada we coddle banks, dentists, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and the list goes on.

Anyways, currency pegs lose their relevance once the lack of idle resources in those countries provokes inflation. Wages are rising at double digit rates in China, and workers are now much harder to find. What's there not to like?

Whats not to like you ask. How about those who worked in steel mills who lost their jobs because finished products from elsewhere was cheaper than raw material was in open markets countries. With knowledge that the displacement might be permanent while conditions that encouraged it might be transient. How about the loss of printed circuit board manufacturing in Canada because Taiwan was willing to flush the lead laden waste down the drain while we insisted that local producers handled the toxic waste responsibly.

 

[kEiThZ]

I concur that we should assist other countries with improving their working conditions. But I would go further and say just ban products from countries that use unsafe working conditions. How come not too many lefties advocate this course of action?

If the issue is about wages, and I suspect it is for many anti-globalization types, then I'd disagree. That's all the developing world has to sell: labour.

Forget China. Let's talk about an interesting case: India. That country has skipped the whole industrialization phase and is moving wholesale into the information age. Is working 14 hr days at a call centre considered abuse? Maybe to us. To an Indian, that's opportunity, because the alternative is back-breaking work on the farm. The same goes for the teeming masses of South Asians you see working on the gleaming towers of the Middle East. As you can see, applying western standards and mindsets to any issue does not work. Indeed, why don't we compare today's poor working conditions in the developing world with a similar period of industrialization in western history.

 

[urbanfan89]

A simple 5% tariff on goods from nations that refuse to institute fair wages and better working conditions and product quality requirements may not change the other nations' behavior, but its worth trying. There is value in western nations saying we disapprove of certain behavior such as the abuse of workers and that we'll apply a simple penalty for such behavior. We in the west need to have funding for our own programs and if we have to compete against such abuse, its only fair. At the end of a day the budget has to have funding sources.

And a 5 to 15% tariff can go a long way towards funding health care, child care, education, and other important programs people need. Especially when trying to compete against nations with none of the above.

Again, we already have more than plenty of money sitting around. For some reason Steve needs to give $50 billion to corporations that are already making billions in profits to do something extremely damaging environmentally.

This isn't rocket science, and I've taken micro and macro econ before. The charts and the cost-benefit analysis of having a fair tariff from nations that abuse workers is right on target if you aren't taxing like 80% or some ridiculous amount. Even a tariff as high as 15% will have minimal effect on trade generally speaking. What it does is say we disapprove of paying workers next to nothing and paying few or no benefits. And it creates a huge revenue source so that we can afford those benefits here. Its a win-win situation. It also allows the government to tax productivity and income less, and corporate taxes could remain low so that business remains attractive instead of going offshore.

So what's the risk of a trade war? Those countries are booming markets for exporters who depend on a high-value workforce. It's a lose-lose situation.

We're facing a new generation, the 21st century just began. Its time we start taxing bad behaviors and start rewarding good work. Lowering income taxes and creating a carbon tax and raising small tariffs again on imports from nations that abuse workers is a good start to modernize tax codes. Taxing a bad, such as carbon emissions, is an ingenious idea. Taxing a bad, such as imports from workers who are abused and have no health insurance, places a penalty on that bad behavior of the businesses and governments offshore that cannot be controlled, while simultaneously providing funding for services that Canadians would cherish.

We already have plenty of money for public services. Ask Steve why he needs to throw barge-fuls of cash into the ocean.

Besides, ask yourself again: do you think all those factory workers who make $2/hour (a figure which is fast rising, btw) for 12 hours a day will sit around a campfire singing Koombaya?

Most of the arguments on the other side that you guys are arguing for sound like old conservative (small c) policies that were in the books in the 1950's and implemented in the 1970's and 1980's. They haven't worked out that well considering the current worldwide economic meltdown. If all we can make money on in the west is trading financial loans around and inflating housing costs, there isn't much wealth to be created anymore. There certainly won't be funding for programs we all value a great deal if we don't redesign our tax revenue system with a new fairness doctrine.

Nonsense. We can perfectly build an economy that relies on "real" things, ensures social justice, and trades (relatively) unimpeded with the world. Most of Europe seems to do well.

There is a world of difference between the what is happening today and what happen during the time when the west industrialized. When it comes to pollution, back then, there was no alternatives and a general lack of awareness of the consequences. Where the argument that that the west benefited from 'dirty' industrialization and therefore developing countries should be able to also fails is that when the west did it it was for their own consumption. We did not use slave labour and dirty energy consumption to flood China, India et al. with cheap western goods because they did not allow there own industries to behave in such a manner. Yet that is exactly what we are doing today. If you have restrictions on local producers which you do not apply to imports, companies will take advantage of it. Pollution by proxy just moves the source farther away. Unfortunately it takes jobs with it.

China is building its industrial infrastructure for its own purposes, first and foremost. It just needs to outsource its consumption until it can sustain itself. Second, I don't think anyone is opposed to regulating the quality of imports.

Yes western governments coddle the agriculture industry. As they do most industries and professions. In Canada we coddle banks, dentists, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and the list goes on.

But does Canada spend billions of dollars subsidizing those people so they can deliberately work for less pay?

Whats not to like you ask. How about those who worked in steel mills who lost their jobs because finished products from elsewhere was cheaper than raw material was in open markets countries. With knowledge that the displacement might be permanent while conditions that encouraged it might be transient. How about the loss of printed circuit board manufacturing in Canada because Taiwan was willing to flush the lead laden waste down the drain while we insisted that local producers handled the toxic waste responsibly.

Perhaps the government should, you know, provide training to allow those steel mill workers to move elsewhere. Or help the steel mill retool to produce higher quality steel.

If a typewriter factory shuts down, should the government ban computers to protect the typewriter factory worker's jobs?

Second, Taiwan is more or less a developed economy that won't allow dumping lead down the drain.

Third, no one is opposed to environmental regulation (as long as it's not thinly veiled protectionism). Strawmen don't work.