1039) Uma petição a favor do livre comércio

Pessoalmente, não tenho ilusões de que manifestos ou petições assinados por intelectuais produzam qualquer efeito prático sobre os decisores, isto é, os políticos que adotam medidas protecionistas. Em 1930, mais de 1.000 economistas -- entre eles muitos famosos, como Frank Taussig, Irving Fisher e vários outros -- encaminharam uma petição ainda mais alarmista do que aquela que figura abaixo para o presidente Hoover, que no entanto assinou e promulgou a Smoot-Hawley e dai foi a catástrofe protecionista.
Em todo caso, leiam a carta do organizador e a petição, aqui abaixo.
Volto depois, com meus comentários.

Join the Petition for Free Trade

Dear Friends,

In cooperation with the International Policy Network and a worldwide group of think tanks, we are circulating this petition to combat recent moves toward harmful economic nationalism. I urge you to sign it. It is not yet a public effort, but please do share it with your colleagues, friends, and professional contacts. The first unveiling of this petition will be April 1st before the G20 meetings in London. It is a part of a much broader campaign that will be mobilized around the world to alert the public to the dangers of attempts to block trade and to revive positive efforts toward increasing freedom of trade. We will have a series of videos on the benefits of trade, booklets, public events, and much more, available in a multitude of languages.

Besides English, this petition will soon be available in over 20 languages. (Please see below). We are working toward an authentically worldwide effort on behalf of freedom of trade. Your help toward that end will be greatly appreciated.

If you would like more information, please contact my colleague David Archer.
Cordially,
Dr. Tom G. Palmer
Vice President for International Programs
General Director, Atlas Global Initiative for Free Trade, Peace, and Prosperity
See below for more languages

Click here to Sign the Petition

Free Trade Is the Best Policy

The specter of protectionism is rising. It is always a dangerous and foolish policy, but it is especially dangerous at a time of economic crisis, when it threatens to damage the world economy. Protectionism’s peculiar premise is that national prosperity is increased when government grants monopoly power to domestic producers. As centuries of economic reasoning, historical experience, and empirical studies have repeatedly shown, that premise is dead wrong. Protectionism creates poverty, not prosperity. Protectionism doesn’t even “protect” domestic jobs or industries; it destroys them, by harming export industries and industries that rely on imports to make their goods. Raising the local prices of steel by “protecting” local steel companies just raises the cost of producing cars and the many other goods made with steel. Protectionism is a fool’s game.

But the fact that protectionism destroys wealth is not its worst consequence. Protectionism destroys peace. That is justification enough for all people of good will, all friends of civilization, to speak out loudly and forcefully against economic nationalism, an ideology of conflict, based on ignorance and carried into practice by protectionism.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, Montesquieu observed that “Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.”

Trade’s most valuable product is peace. Trade promotes peace, in part, by uniting different peoples in a common culture of commerce – a daily process of learning others’ languages, social norms, laws, expectations, wants, and talents.

Trade promotes peace by encouraging people to build bonds of mutually beneficial cooperation. Just as trade unites the economic interests of Paris and Lyon, of Boston and Seattle, of Calcutta and Mumbai, trade also unites the economic interests of Paris and Portland, of Boston and Berlin, of Calcutta and Copenhagen – of the peoples of all nations who trade with other.

A great deal of rigorous empirical research supports the proposition that trade promotes peace.

Perhaps the most tragic example of what happens when that insight is ignored is World War II.

International trade collapsed by 70 percent between 1929 and 1932, in no small part because of America’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff and the retaliatory tariffs of other nations. Economist Martin Wolf notes that “this collapse in trade was a huge spur to the search for autarky and Lebensraum, most of all for Germany and Japan.”

The most ghastly and deadly wars in human history soon followed.

By reducing war, trade saves lives.

Trade saves lives also by increasing prosperity and extending it to more and more people. The evidence that freer trade promotes prosperity is simply overwhelming. Prosperity enables ordinary men and women to lead longer and healthier lives.

And with longer, healthier lives lived more peacefully, people integrated into the global economy have more time to enjoy the vast array of cultural experiences brought to them by free trade. Culture is enriched by contributions from around the world, made possible by free trade in goods and in ideas.

Without a doubt, free trade increases material prosperity. But its greatest gift is not easily measured with money. That greatest gift is lives that are freer, fuller, and far less likely to be scalded or destroyed by the atrocities of war.

Accordingly, we the undersigned join together in a plea to the governments of all nations to resist the calls of the short-sighted and the greedy to raise higher the barriers to trade. In addition, we call on them to tear down current protectionist barriers to free trade. To each government, we say: let your citizens enjoy not only the fruits of your own fields, factories, and genius, but also those of the entire globe. The rewards will be greater prosperity, richer lives, and enjoyment of the blessings of peace.

Click here to Sign the Petition

Voltei, como diria um famoso colunista:

Sem ilusoes. Podemos até assinar, mas o impacto desse tipo de peticao é minimo, irrisorio, para nao dizer nulo.
Em primeiro lugar, porque ninguem está lutando a favor ou contra o livre comercio, enquanto doutrina ou enquanto politica setorial.
Em segundo lugar, porque o protecionismo seletivo e localizado, que está sendo aplicado atualmente por um numero consideravel de paises, não está se opondo ao livre comercio, e sim a um regime multilateral de comercio que possue inumeras brechas, atraves das quais os governos implementam pequenas medidas de protecao dos empregos locais e da producao nacional.
Em terceiro lugar, porque a alternativa ao protecionismo aberto, que nao está sendo praticado por ninguem -- salvo por um ou outro governo muito estupido, como o argentino -- é apenas o comercio administrado estilo GATT-OMC, ou seja, nada de muito diferente do que temos hoje.
O processo no mundo real, em tempos normais, se dá atraves de complicadas negociacoes que permitem uma liberalizacao progressiva e muito limitada, reduzindo algumas tarifas e disciplinando algumas tantas praticas, ao mesmo tempo em que oferece escape clauses e salvaguardas suficientes para os governos praticarem aquilo que sempre praticaram: protecionismo seletivo, disfarcado de ajuda setorial, em tons de cinza...
Em tempos anormais, como os nossos, o protecionismo setorial tende a se elevar um pouco acima das praticas correntes, apenas isso.
Nao será uma peticao que fará os governos mudarem de atitude.
Pode-se assinar por principio, mas sem a ilusao de que isso faça alguma diferença...

Como regra de principio, todo economista sensato é a favor do livre comercio.
Como regra de principio, todo politico sensato diz que é a favor do livre comercio, mas pratica protecionismo seletivo.
Só os mais estupidos (ou muito sinceros) sao a favor do protecionismo aberto.
-------------
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
pralmeida@mac.com