> - How is trade between industrialized nations different from trade > between states or provinces within a nation? > - If it's not much different, why don't we go back a few hundred years, > and start taxing goods that cross the state, or even county lines? Think > of pre-Bismarck Germany, with its 30+ (if my memory doesn't fail me) > different tariff codes. > - Can you give me the name of one country which isolated itself > economically, and prospered because of it? No, I am not attempting to answer questions to the UN. My few cents as a citizen of a small nation without natural resources that heavily depends on free trade of goods to survive. Market economy !=Free Trade. Market economy is more than that as it has to live with many shortcomings, it has to take care of many details, and making things happen. And Free Trade != Trade, "free trade" does not invent trade, trade exists long before that and before market economy. The greatest plus about "free trade" is people are cheating on rules and words to trade than through gun, canon, slavery and colonization. I am inclined to believe that "free trade" staying around the unfree area is better, unless the world become one nation. Then this becomes a moot point. When the strong nations cannot take advantage of the "free-trade" rule to gain, they will resolve to another means. The previous ways are definitely not better. If "trading" is equal as in the economic theory, then we should have seen many poor nations become rich, but after so many years the figures show that poor nations stay poor. The tiger economies are the exceptions but the credits go towards more to their culture and altitudes, and they could be a short burp on the rader screen. Guess, the Zen inside me wants Market-economy, the NGO, etc to direct the "freeness" of trade, and not the other way round. "Free-trade ism" is what I am afraid. Cheers, Ling SM -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist