>RK:
>2. You don't respond to my point that social protection will be mainly used
>against *NON-COMPETING* imports in order to compel subordination to or
>further integration with US imperialist capital or in order to save quota
>increases for countries that are already so subordinated and integrated.
>>>>>>>>
>
>MBS: What evidence can you cite to support this fantasy?
Well, Max, what evidence can you provide to support your fantasy that it won't be used in this abusive, protectionist, power political way? I'd say the examples of Africa (Friedman did suggest that African exports compete with Honduran and Chinese production, not American production--so here we have an example of ban on non competing production) and Cambodia (WSJ) at least raise the possibilities of abuse.
>RK:
>4. You don't explain why if the boycott is such an important weapon that
>Sweeney, etc aren't fighting for the right to use it at home.
>
>MBS: Which boycott are you referring to?
Max, isn't it illegal in many cases to organize boycotts against union busters in the US. If we think it's so important to boycott such foreign producers--and to organize massive Seattle size rallies towards this end--why not so much pressure to revise US law?
Cheers, Rakesh