Quite

I\’m referring to trade here. I simply don\’t understand some people on the left and their attitude to international trade. In the 19th century, the \’liberal-left\’ in this country, including sections of what we would now probably describe as the \’hard-left\’, campaigned for free trade and against the Corn Laws on the grounds that it meant cheaper bread for hard-pressed working class families. Can someone explain to me what the hell happened? You might think, for example, that some might welcome trade with China on the grounds that this means cheap T-shirts for children in low-income families as well as recognising that the expansion of trade in this context forms part of the reason why we have seen in the East the largest rise in material welfare ever recoded in human history. Instead international trade is associated exclusively in the minds of some with environmental degradation, sweated labour and the appeasement of dictatorships. I was careful to say exclusively – absolutely no up-side at all for some folk.

3 thoughts on “Quite”

  1. yes international trade means cheaper goods and a most efficient use of resources….but we haven’t had trade since(1971) ,when the trade was balanced by gold…
    passing green chits for assets is not trade..

  2. “the ‘liberal-left’ in this country” – I fear that the estimable Shuggy shares with old Dillowbert the illusion that there is a ‘liberal-left’ in this country. If there is one, I am puzzled by its near invisibility throughout my life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *