Americans least likely to favor free trade

According to a Pew Global Attitudes Survey that came out in June 2008 majorities in countries as diverse as Pakistan, Nigeria, China and the US support free trade. More:

Majorities in all 24 nations surveyed say increasing trade and economic integration is a good thing for their countries. In fact, enthusiasm for trade is pervasive in a number of countries and not just in nations such as China, where there is widespread satisfaction with the economy. By contrast, of the countries surveyed, the U.S. is the least supportive of trade.

While enthusiasm for trade is broad based, some publics are more convinced of its value than others. For example, an overwhelming majority of Nigerians (91%) say increased trade ties are either “very good” or “somewhat good,” with six-in-ten (59%) saying “very.” Large percentages of other publics also feel strongly about such ties; more than four-in-ten in Pakistan, South Africa, India, Tanzania and Lebanon say increased trade is “very good."

The fact that the US comes last doesn't fit my priors, but there's no deny it. I know many Americans oppose free trade, and appeal to the prejudice is an easy way for a politician to stir up support. But when you compare trade barriers across different countries you find that the U.S. has some of the lowest. (At least I believe that to be the case.) You'd think, then, that in countries with high trade barriers, public support for free trade would be lower. It seems the U.S. is highly open to trade in spite of a substantial minority who oppose it.

Jimmy Carter does not feel your pain

He is a pain.

I will admit it. When I was young and foolish I voted for Jimmy Carter for president. (Yes, that's how old I am.) I even read his campaign autobiography, Why Not the Best?. It's revealing that why not the best translated into Jimmy knows best, as in his inability to delegate even the setting White House tennis court schedule.

Recently, Carter had an op-ed in the Washington Post on the plight of African farmers. FreeXchange says it better than I would:

Mr Carter rails against the way American farm subsidies can harm poorer countries, pointing out a few interesting facts along the way:

A 2002 report by Oxfam International estimates that in 2001 sub-Saharan Africa lost $302 million as a direct result of U.S. cotton subsidies, with two-thirds of the loss sustained in eight countries -- Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Central African Republic, Chad and Togo. Compared with American humanitarian assistance, the subsidies to U.S. cotton farmers amount to more than the U.S. Agency for International Development's total annual budget for all of sub-Saharan Africa.

So we should scrap American protections, right? No no no. Not at all! Displaying a terrifying sort of logic, Mr Carter in his concluding paragraph argues:

Cotton production costs 73 cents per pound in the United States and only 21 cents per pound in West Africa, so American farmers do need protection in the international marketplace.

With that ratio I suppose I would put something else after that "so". For example: "it makes no sense for Americans to produce cotton." Cato Institute trade analyst Dan Ikenson would make a lousy cotton farmer, but he's got his economics straight:

If cotton production is so much cheaper in West Africa than in the United States, then more production should happen there and less should happen here. If Carter is really interested in the well-being of West African farmers, “whose scant livelihood depends on cotton production,” he should advocate free trade in cotton. Why instead does he advocate that U.S. farmers be protected in the international market place? West African incomes will continue to suffer if U.S. subsidy programs are replaced by U.S. tariffs, which is what Carter seems to be advocating. How does it help Malian farmers lift themselves out of poverty if they can’t effectively compete on their advantages? Higher U.S. tariffs would only drive down the world price (as subsidies do) and likely compel other importer nations to raise tariffs to protect their own producers, shrinking the market further for Malian farmers.

In praise of globalization

Freeexchange in a post headlined "Oh no, globalization increases the return to human capital"

An ideological fixation on inequality is especially perverse when it comes to less-developed nations. In these cases, we must be most concerned with increasing absolute standards of living across the income scale, and especially at the bottom. ... [The evidence is] globalisation is improving life for poorer workers around the world. Excellent! And that's about all we need know to get four-square behind expanding global trade.

Now, it is certainly interesting to explain the difference in rates of wage increase -- once we have firmly grasped that there is increase across the board. The IMF study finds that trade alone brings up the bottom and tends to reduce inequality. However, technology transfer and foreign investment, which tends to be tech-related, has bid up the price for certain kinds of highly skilled labour faster than it has for lower skilled labour, more than offsetting the equalising tendency of trade alone.

UAE continues to rank well in economic freedom

Gulf News draws our attention to the latest rankings of 141 countries based upon economic freedom. The UAE ranks 15th worldwide. Saudi Arabia is among the countries not included in 141 examined in Economic Freedom of the World: Annual Report 2007 by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian economic thinktank.

Here's the link to those economic rankings. After you follow the link you find pdf links to the chapters and tables.

Gulf News observed

The UAE scored 7.7 points out of 10 in the survey compared with 7.8 points in the previous year as its labour regulations' score declined to 6.6 points from 8.9 points.
...
The UAE came in fifth place globally in the 'freedom to trade internationally' category, compared with ranks of 18 and 25 in Germany and the US, respectively.