I’ll start where we agree. We both believe that the rich nations should not impose economic policies on poorer countries which they would not adopt for themselves.We disagree in that I think we should open our markets as well, and you seem to think that's a bad idea.

Consider this...

Britain has every incentive in the world to get it's beef from New Zealand. The high amount of arable land means that it takes less resources to produce better beef. Its also safer, more sanitary and more animal friendly because the animals are allowed to roam and feed on higher quality food. Its cheaper because land is cheap. Ecologically, the land isn't overgrazed and (since the government has stopped subsidizing fertilizer) industrial fertilizers which are notorious for their ill-effects to the environment and contaminating underground water supplies are rarely used. In short, New Zealand has a clear comparative advantage in the beef market.

It would make a lot of sense for Britain to import all it's beef, yet she doesn't. You see, Britain has cattle farms, too. They're notorious for being cramped, world class progenitors of pollution, and for low quality/high cost beef. Worse, its unsafe. Its been a common practice in such 'feed-lots' to save money by thinning out the feed with saw-dust, raw sewage or even road-kill. (Anyone who has lived in Kansas should know of the practice)

What happens when you feed meat to an herbivore? You get foot and mouth disease, BSE (bovine spongiform encephalitis) and its human variant CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). All are not only too common in Britain, but have originated in the British beef industry. 180,000 cases of BSE have been reported in Britain alone and another 1,800 cases reported in foreign markets due to lax regulatory accountability. Moreover when people eventually die the farmers are not penalized for their harmful actions, but rather compensated for the loss of their cows which now have to be destroyed. The farmers are getting paid either way. Subsidization leads to a frightening and dangerous lack of accountability.

Not only is British beef more dangerous, but it also presents a form of regressive taxation on the poor. Because of the greater resource expenditure to raise cattle and 'protect' prices and farmers, beef is incredibly expensive. Two to three times as much in fact. Between this and other protections, this means a food budget for a struggling family of four amounting to 300 dollars a month now goes half as far. Either they suck up this extra expense and pay more, which prohibits them from otherwise saving, investing, or using that money, or it has to make do with half as much food.

Been there. It sucks.

I'm not saying that company's are angels of beneficence, they're not. A company is at root a bunch of people working together to further their own interests. To that effect Adam Smith once said that there were two things needed to ensure the survival of capitalism. The first was an educated populace to sustain it's advancement. The second was the separation of private interests from politics. Not only do I agree, but that's my whole point.

If you wanted to pick an example of how protectionism helps an industry grow and at the same time ask me to evaluate it on a socio-political level, you could have picked a much better example than the cotton industry. Harvesting cotton is very labor intensive work, even with Eli Whitney's cotton gin. The cotton industry in America thusly capitalized on enslavement. This supported the complimentary industry of the slave trade, led the south to secede from the union to protect the economic interests of the few, and fostered the hatred and poor race relations which has soured American politics for over two hundred and fifty years. How's that for an externality?

The ultimate power of enforcement in the marketplace is the federal government. Consumers can vote with their dollars, but it doesn't mean much if the government rigs the election beforehand. When a special interest wants protection that's who it ultimately has to make its appeal to. Special interests pay politicians to keep other businesses out of competition with them through tariff walls, ‘anti-dumping’ laws, and lengthy bureaucratic procedures. When this happens corruption and graft not only permeate the economic, but political systems as well. This was the heart of MacCain-Feingold. Protectionism makes us all less free.

Consider this, thirty years ago it was commonly thought that for a fledgling economy to grow it needed protectionism, tariff walls, subsidies, et. al. At that time both India and South Korea were dismally destitute.

India followed the conventional wisdom. With the lack of outside intervention, competition to control the inside business grew fiercely with businesses paying off politicians and becoming subsidized monopolies in their sector. Without the accountability to the consumers fostered by competition, quality and customer service fell and prices rose to prohibitive levels. Indians were stuck paying more for less. Perhaps worst of all, even though there was food agricultural price supports meant that half the children in a country of almost a billion people suffered from desperate malnutrition because of its lack of availability in urban areas. In short, the standard of living plummeted.

South Korea decided to take the opposite route. They opened up their borders to free trade and enacted policies which fostered growth through international investment. Their chief initial resource was cheap labor, so repetitive jobs with minimal skill requirements began popping up in 'Sweat Shops'. South Korea in turn was then able to reinvest the rewards of this investment in better infrastructure and education which in turn fostered further international investment and growth. Soon it became cheaper to hold 'Sweat Shops' elsewhere and the populace was ready for newer, more challenging, and more lucrative work.

Thirty years later, the sweat shops in South Korea which coined the term 'sweatshop Earth' have led to the development and enrichment of one of largest, most successful economies in that part of the world. Beyond that, the standard of living of your average South Korean is much higher than that of their neighboring countries. All of this leave proponents of the protectionist myth declaring it an economic 'miracle'.

Meanwhile India remains one of the most corrupt governments and destitute economies in the third world. But it's getting better. In recent years India has slowly but surely began relieving itself of internal protections. Its now opening up its borders to more outside trade. Consequently the standard of living has risen as well. Its still not where it needs to be, but meaningful change takes time.

American protectionism isn't a case of some lightweight going up against a juggernaut of trade. Its more the case of the aging prize-fighter, who can no longer compete, so he makes an appeal to the referee. "Look Mac, I got babies to feed. I'd appreciate it if you could swing this a little bit my way, ya know? Maybe tie his hands, or let me take a few shots below the belt to even things up a little. C'mon Mac, we go back a long way. You can even wet your beak a little from the prize money. We both win." This is the same argument used every time an industry appeals to the government for a subsidy or tariff. Its incredibly sleazy and incredibly unfair to the young prize fighter trying to come up in the world.

That's exactly what the WTO is saying we shouldn't be doing. That's also why I think its a shame we'll never go along with it because its political suicide to go against the special interests. That brings me back to Adam Smith's quote about the necessity of an educated public and keeping business out of politics.

Bottom line, we're all better off doing what we do best. Proctectionism inhibits that and exacts a stifling economic and moral toll on our country.