Are the EU/NAFTA etc becoming redundant?

[RandBlade]

I think the EU has done a lot of good things in bringing down barriers across Europe, I suspect NAFTA has the same to a lesser extent in North America. Longer term though, I'm not interested in simply having no barriers in Europe, no barriers in North America and a major fence across the Atlantic but removing those same barriers across the globe.

Globalisation seems to be an unstoppable force. As a big fan of globalisation, I'm grateful for that. As technology continue to improve, the world is becoming a more inter-connected and smaller place. Geography is becoming less and less important, with knowledge a far more useful trait than mere location. In the nineties it wasn't unusual to hear talk of major emerging trading blocks in continents (add in ASEAN etc too), but I don't see why that is necessary or relevant.

Should we be introverted looking just to our immediate neighbours, or should we be looking out to the entire world? My ideal would be an eventual merger between NAFTA, the EU, ASEAN etc into one massive free trade and commerce bloc.

[Dreadnaught]

Wait, why should there be a fence across the Atlantic?

[RandBlade]

Metaphorically.

[Dreadnaught]

I know, but why? It seems to sorta conflict with your other points.

[RandBlade]

???

I said I'm against having fences between us.

[wiggin]

I was actually confused about the same thing, I think your phrasing was just bad.

Regardless, I think you're partly right and partly wrong. Regional free trade areas are often more than just about lowering barriers to trade. They often involve regional cooperation on labor issues, the environment, trade financing (and finance in general), etc. I think that those issues are often easier to resolve on a regional rather than global basis due to different local standards. They also can often work as a local talking shop for broader issues - security concerns (e.g. borders, shipping lanes, etc.), migrants, etc. So I think that even in the presence of a global free trade agreement, these regional bodies have some purpose - whether they're called ASEAN or NAFTA or EU or something new.

That being said, I do agree that in principle freer trade is better, subject to a reasonable enforcement regime.

[RandBlade]

On labor does the US, Canada and Mexico have the same labour rights? Do all US states even have the same ones? It is the co-operation on labour issues that I least approve the EU doing, if the French want a 35 hour week and we're content to do 55 what difference does it make? I think labour issues should be an issue for local democracy.

Finance in general is getting globalised fast. Too right too, it makes no sense to me for something as electronic and ethereal as finance to be restricted by geography.

The one area that's different is manufacturing makes more sense regionally, due to costs it currently makes sense for cars to be manufactured on the continents they're bought in. But manufacturing is becoming less important and transport costs less too.

[GGT]

I think the EU has done a lot of good things in bringing down barriers across Europe...

Do you think those barriers would/could have been made without experimenting with a common currency (the eurodollar)?

Globalisation seems to be an unstoppable force. As a big fan of globalisation, I'm grateful for that. As technology continue to improve, the world is becoming a more inter-connected and smaller place. Geography is becoming less and less important, with knowledge a far more useful trait than mere location. In the nineties it wasn't unusual to hear talk of major emerging trading blocks in continents (add in ASEAN etc too), but I don't see why that is necessary or relevant.

Geography can only become "less important" when fuel and energy aren't "as important" in the scheme of things. To date, we're still engaging in WAR military conflicts related to petroleum products, reserves, refineries, and international sea-lane transportation routes....protected by military forces. "Globalization" is still dependent on energy/energy policy when that knowledge requires connectivity of some sort.

Should we be introverted looking just to our immediate neighbours, or should we be looking out to the entire world? My ideal would be an eventual merger between NAFTA, the EU, ASEAN etc into one massive free trade and commerce bloc.

Does your ideal consider currency exchange rates, energy and labor costs of imports/exports between first world (wealthy) and emerging (poor) nations, and the massive disparities? While it might be a great ideal to "merge" trade agreements, and think of the globe as one massive trading bloc....it can't be done without some political and ideological compromise between governments.

In other words, is Free Trade ever really "free" of some type of tariff, tax, fee, surcharge, or exchange rate? Would mergers of trade agreements actually meet your ideal, or is your ideal really a utopian pipe dream?

[RandBlade]

Do you think those barriers would/could have been made without experimenting with a common currency (the eurodollar)?

Euro, not eurodollar. And I've been a sceptic of the euro for years [and entirely vindicated by recent events] so yes quite clearly I think so. As barriers come down there's no reason we couldn't have more currencies rather than less ones.

Geography can only become "less important" when fuel and energy aren't "as important" in the scheme of things. To date, we're still engaging in WAR military conflicts related to petroleum products, reserves, refineries, and international sea-lane transportation routes....protected by military forces. "Globalization" is still dependent on energy/energy policy when that knowledge requires connectivity of some sort.

Fuel costs are higher even in real times now than they were in the 60s, are we more or less globalised than then? I'd say more, energy is not that exclusively important.

Does your ideal consider currency exchange rates, energy and labor costs of imports/exports between first world (wealthy) and emerging (poor) nations, and the massive disparities? While it might be a great ideal to "merge" trade agreements, and think of the globe as one massive trading bloc....it can't be done without some political and ideological compromise between governments.

No, no, no and no.

Let the free market determine freely floating exchange rates, energy prices, local labour costs and resolve disparities.

In other words, is Free Trade ever really "free" of some type of tariff, tax, fee, surcharge, or exchange rate? Would mergers of trade agreements actually meet your ideal, or is your ideal really a utopian pipe dream?

Exchange rate is not the same as a tariff. Exchange for a freely-floating currency should be merely a price no different to any other commodity.

Eliminate tariffs, taxes and fees for international trade. That is enough for me, the market and local politics can sort out the rest.

[GGT]

Since your ideal places such faith in "the market" and "local politics", and downplays the costs of energy (or that energy resources are treated as government revenue, and political tools)...and that currencies aren't just free-floating commodities, but are manipulated...

I'd be interested in how you flesh out the specifics. Maybe if you apply your Ideal to a reality-based narrative, it'd be easier to understand what you mean.

Wanna start with tariff-free, tax-free, and fee-free UK Olympics international trade? How would airlines manage that, when most of their profits come from tariffs, taxes, and fees? How would other service industries like hotels, taxi cabs, restaurants, or sight-seeing tours contribute to local infrastructure costs without "taxing" their international visitors?

Trade is trade, whether it involves goods or services, right?

[wiggin]

On labor does the US, Canada and Mexico have the same labour rights? Do all US states even have the same ones? It is the co-operation on labour issues that I least approve the EU doing, if the French want a 35 hour week and we're content to do 55 what difference does it make? I think labour issues should be an issue for local democracy.

No, the labor rights are not the same, but they are discussed and compared in NAFTA - see the NAALC. Environmental stuff was actually more relevant in NAFTA - see the NAAEC for more details. I don't think all free trade areas/groups have the same importance to regional cooperation - obviously the EU is on one extreme pushing for nearly complete integration, while a loose and relatively ad-hoc FTA would be the ASEAN FTA or the still-embryonic TPP. But it's not news that these groups provide a forum for a much broader range of issues than merely reducing tariffs on trade.

Finance in general is getting globalised fast. Too right too, it makes no sense to me for something as electronic and ethereal as finance to be restricted by geography.

Trade insurance still tends to be very governmental - e.g. the Ex-Im Bank in the US. That being said, I wasn't suggesting that financial services should be (or are) local matters. I was suggesting that financial regulation - especially as it relates to matters of trade (capital controls, exchange rate controls, etc.) often matters more in a local context. Clandestine capital flight is a lot easier across a single border than across the world.

A country's local area matters, though obviously that isn't to say that a global outlook is very important as well.

[RandBlade]

Since your ideal places such faith in "the market" and "local politics", and downplays the costs of energy (or that energy resources are treated as government revenue, and political tools)...and that currencies aren't just free-floating commodities, but are manipulated...

I'd be interested in how you flesh out the specifics. Maybe if you apply your Ideal to a reality-based narrative, it'd be easier to understand what you mean.

Wanna start with tariff-free, tax-free, and fee-free UK Olympics international trade? How would airlines manage that, when most of their profits come from tariffs, taxes, and fees? How would other service industries like hotels, taxi cabs, restaurants, or sight-seeing tours contribute to local infrastructure costs without "taxing" their international visitors?

Trade is trade, whether it involves goods or services, right?

What are you talking about? Charging a fee on a service != a tax.

[Steely Glint]

Wait, why should there be a fence across the Atlantic?

Because it would be way cool?

[Wraith]

Let's get on that transatlantic tunnel first.

[Steely Glint]

With, like, a secret base in the middle.

[Wraith]

With a submarine entrance in a skull shaped coral formation!

[Dreadnaught]

When I first went to San Francisco (I think I was 6 or 7) I thought the Golden Gate Bridge went to China. It didn't imagine people would build something big and talked-about just go to another part of America.

Having been over the various New York bridges dozens of times up to that point somehow didn't register to me.