The Proverbial Fish

There's a cliche about teaching a man how to fish that I'd like to amend:

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Buy the fish the man catches, and he gets to eat steak."

Ok, so the last line isn't *really* necessary, because it can be implied from the second that the proverbial man can generate income from his new skill. But sometimes I think people forget about that.

So currently Pres. Bush is talking with top Dems about compromising on trade deals. The main issue is that Bush actually wants to help poor countries not through pure aid (ie - giving them fish) but through trade deals (ie - buying their fish). However, this is in conflict with the Dems who are supported by labor unions whose members potentially could loose jobs because they're not competitive with the labor from the other countries. Now granted, labor does cost more here due to cost of living, taxes, health care, and whatnot. And so on the surface, the Dems' demands for fair labor practices in countries we engage with in bilateral trade agreements sounds all nice and humanitarian. But it clouds the issue of the fact that it's just another for of protectionism.

Example: The American automotive industry. The auto-industry unions demand a lot of Ford, GM, etc. Huge medical benefits, retirement, high wages, you name it. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, none of them allow unions. As a result, they're much more competitive because they have more money to throw at R&D, quality control, process improvement, all the things that go into make a better car. And the consumers know it, that's why Toyota's overtaken GM's market share. The American public are probably not explicitly aware of the no-unions thing, but they have a conscious choice in either buy a better product or supporting the bloated American auto-industry. And if labor practices were horrible since there are no unions at Toyota, wouldn't you think that labor would be running away not towards Toyota?

The other part of this issue is that people in poor countries are poor for a really good reason: they don't have industries to provide jobs. If die-hard liberals were serious about helping these nations out, they'd push for free-trade agreements everywhere. And there's also a side benefit to free-trade: stability. Columbia and Guatemala are right in Hugo Chavez's backyard, and they need our help if they plan to stay afloat. Best way is to shore up their economies with bilateral trade agreements that pumps goods and dollars to their people. And yes, I know, they don't have the same labor regulations we do. Well, they don't have the kind of money to even come close to paying what we pay our workers! America's labor regulations didn't appear overnight. Less-developed countries will always start out with worse labor practices than we do. But if we give them a chance to develop, over time they will. Their people will demand it, just like we do.

So Dems, stop your protectionist ways. Trust me, it's better for all of us in the long term.