Yeah, it is hardly proof.

She is theoretically correct, instituting varied restrictions and supports to trade could provide beneficial outcomes to world trade. And if anyone is going to construct a theoretical model of the various mechanisms to achieve that better outcome that person would be an international trade law prof. So there exists the possibility that she is working with the best possible intent.

Theoretically possible, for someone of great technical expertise.

However for such a theory to work in practice each nation must institute a set of altrusitic trade laws. That the nations do this knowing that if they should not be altruistic they will face no censure (for there will be no WTO). That the trade regulations will not be subject to political interference, even though politicians and the nation will face no censure for doing so. And that trade law experts exist of fine and unimpeachable ethics who would be able to agree on a best, most altruistic model and then be entrusted to implement it. These are insurmountable challenges to the theory.

In practical application it would fail, anybody except an idiot can see that.

An attempt to implement such a system would fail AND make conforming to trade regulations a much more complex task for multinational traders. Thus making trade law specialists sought after by multinationals.

Either a well meaning savant/idiot or an self-interested person.

I suggested that taxes should be slashed to promote foreign investment.

And by slashing taxes, one has to slash government, which is fairly “radical”, isn’t it (unless you want to borrow…in this environment)? I suppose you assume that more foreign investment = ‘more money for all’ (eventually, maybe) = ‘less government not really a problem’, but I do think it’s a tad simplistic, (as you allude) and that this reduction in services would present many problems for many people. However re: the Families Commission etc you’ve got a point – the nation is hardly going to collapse into anarchy if it goes!

So gazzmaniac, what you were really suggesting was radical reform of the government apparatus as it stands…you should’ve just said that the first time!

No that’s not what I said. I suggested that taxes should be slashed to promote foreign investment. In my original post I made no comment about how it could be afforded. Not that cutting back the public service to its core would be a bad thing.

Who’d come? What money?

Believe it or not there are still people in the world with large amounts of capital. They are not putting it in to US or British banks because that sector is pretty risky right now. So they might look to put it elsewhere in the world. Which country’s banks have been the biggest winners from this crisis? Now if New Zealand wants to see any of that capital they will have to have a pretty big carrot to encourage investment in the New Zealand subsidaries of the Aussie banks rather than their parent comanies – that is where my suggestion about slashing tax rates comes about. If New Zealand has a lower tax regieme than Australia then a bigger piece of the pie will come our way. It will also serve to attract capital from the unstable US and UK to a more stable Australasian money market that might otherwise have stayed at home.

Am I being simplistic? Maybe. But no more so than those who argue for protectionist policies or for the status quo. Nobody has tried that idea during a major recession or “depression” so maybe it is worth a go. It would certainly be better than closing the trade door.

Ethics, is that east or west of London?

*eye roll thingy*

Didn’t think of consulting I must admit.

It doesn’t look like she’s a practising trade lawyer though? Not even sure that is ever done – lecturing/teaching while practising at the same time that is – may be one of those ethics things.

Ethics, is that east or west of London?

Professors tend to be hired as consultants to government, multinationals, interested well-monied people for their area of expertise. But practising for themselves, that could be seen as unethical (besides paying less and requiring more work than consulting).

Depending on what you mean by practising, I’m pretty sure there are law lecturers who do practise. Kelsey isn’t, to my knowledge, though.

Call me cynical, but when an international trade lawyer tell us we should avoid simplifying international trade law, make more laws more complex and employ more international trade lawyers – she’ll be much richer, should we ever take up her suggestions – I smell a stench of self-interest.

It doesn’t look like she’s a practising trade lawyer though? Not even sure that is ever done – lecturing/teaching while practising at the same time that is – may be one of those ethics things.

You don’t seem to consider that there might be a myriad of legal issues surrounding trade.

Kelsey’s idea is that if each nation generates another myriad layer upon existing myriad layer of legal complexity the issue will be “solved”.

Call me cynical, but when an international trade lawyer tell us we should avoid simplifying international trade law, make more laws more complex and employ more international trade lawyers – she’ll be much richer, should we ever take up her suggestions – I smell a stench of self-interest.

Here’s a thought – if the government wants to attract foreign capital why doesn’t it slash the corporate and personal tax rates?

Because the government would have to borrow a lot of money to cover the immediate shortfall. And if insufficient investment came, our currency would crash and the investors that did arrive (& everyone living here) would be burnt.

Not good for Britain and USA, but they are protectionist against us anyway. Slash taxes and watch the money come rolling in. NZ could boom while the rest of the world burns.

Who’d come? What money?

To benefit from a tax cut multinationals would have to be making a profit and very few are doing so currently. They would be better off to go to the USA where that government is giving out free money, billions at a time, to cover any losses.

http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/free-trade-makes-sense/

How would that immediately affect the other services government provides?

The government could get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy that is around Wellington. I recently heard of the case of a spin doctor who (under the Labour government) turned down a job for $70 per hour because it was too low. I am led to believe that this was fairly normal. They could easily get rid of those sort of people from the public service and replace them with people who do actual work. The public doesn’t care about what the Government thinks of itself – they draw their own conclusions based on their experience anyway.
Or of course they could get rid of the Tertiary Education Commission, the Family Comission, the Children’s Comission, the Electricity Comission… the list goes on.