Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Trade offsets (Eastern Myopia) Message-ID: <1271@dciem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 17:27:04 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1271 Posted: Wed Dec 12 17:27:04 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 18:52:54 EST References: <854@ubc-cs.UUCP> <653@watcgl.UUCP>Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 27 Summary: I'm not clear why submitting to Indonesian trade offset requirements is a bow in the direction of freer trade. If Indonesia wants BC lumber, isn't it reasonable they should buy it, rather than enforcing the trade offset? (I'm not sure I'm using the technically correct word, but it will do). As I understand the situation, many developing countries will buy goods of certain kinds ONLY if the selling country will in return buy unrelated goods that the developing country can't otherwise easily sell. You can see their point, but it means that the selling Government has to get into the act to persuade somebody not the least interested in the primary deal (lumber) to buy something they would not otherwise buy (textiles). Protection of the industry producing the secondary product (textiles) is a separate issue that may complicate the whole mess. If Indonesia wanted its offset in something someone in Canada wanted to buy, matters would be easier. I have mixed feelings about trade offsets. On the one hand they increase the volume of world trade in a way that probably benefits the country imposing the offset, and on the other they force Governments into the position of brokers trying to find buyers for things that may not have a reasonable market, in order that other people may sell things that have a reasonable market. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt