Consensus on trade

Hi, just to introduce myself, I’m from the New Physiocratic League, a Georgist project advocating for a lot of overlapping policy solutions that the Pirate Party proposes.

A particular area that interests me which I haven’t yet seen addressed, are some issues surrounding trade. In the Pirate platform, it seems the stance is to unilaterally remove trade barriers, and there would also be no domestic concerns about IP, because IP rules would be loosened or removed. Sounds fair. But what is your personal stance on trading with countries which actively try to weaponize trade, where there is active state backing for industries, including direct subsidies, subsidized loans, and systemic trade restrictions with the aim of distorting markets to achieve political and military aims?

1 Like

Now we’re talking. This is a good question, if not great.

I cannot comment since I do not see myself qualified. But I thought about something similiar last week on perhaps the need to monitor / regulate cooperation between Australian and Overseas-based Universities to prevent the acquisition of Australian developed technology to aid the aspiring political and military goals of other countries.

Ok if they’re allies. Not so ok if they’re not.

Generally speaking, if a country wants to waste money subsidising various industries and then export those goods to us at even cheaper prices, great! Our consumers will get the benefit of their subsidies at their taxpayers expense.

Personally the only view I have regarding how to handle countries which might undermine important domestic industries vital to some sort of strategic defense or something, is to ensure any critical industries we want to retain survive with domestic govt procurement policy. Otherwise it doesn’t strike me as particulary problematic; so long as the government is acting as employer of last resort and engaging in industrial policy to ensure communities don’t get hollowed out by disappearance of some industries.

1 Like