[Joeri]

Why is it legal to sell goods that are made with labor that would be illegal in the country of sale?

If the US and Europe required that as part of the certification process for sale the labor also had to be certified, it would make their economies more competitive while simultaneously raising quality of life abroad. It seems like an obvious win, even for a corporate congress, so i don't understand why it hasn't happened.

[eli_gottlieb]

Because the actual point of most trade agreements nowadays is precisely to empower the investor class to override local standards regarding things like product composition (think of Europe and its cheeses), labor (what you said already), and environmental issues (think of how China and India dump garbage). It's not at all smart in the long-term if your goal is anything aside from class-struggle from the top, but that does in fact seem to be the goal.

[landryraccoon]

Protectionist trade policy easily leads to wars. Banning goods produced with Chinese labor practices is tantamount to banning Chinese imports, which will have far reaching global implications beyond iPhones, and will increase military tensions greatly. Countries that don't trade find it much easier to start shooting at each other.

On the other hand, free trade leads to freer exchange of information, ideas, and aligns the incentives between nations so that cooperation is more beneficial. Powerful economic interests on both sides will have strong incentives to pursue peace. If those incentives are removed, nationalistic forces and firebrands have less of a counterweight to pursue miltaristic or aggressive policies.

As an example, think about the trade embargo against Iran. It was basically a declaration of war on Iran from the whole world. If the US institutes anything comparable with China it will be easily considered by China as an open act of hostility. This is how the Cold War 2.0 gets started.

[kobayashi]

You had me until your last para. The sanctions against Iran were most certainly not akin to a declaration of war. If Iran had viewed it as such, it would have likely closed the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation, which it regularly vows to do if a warring scenario were to arise. So not even Iran viewed the sanctions as war-like.

The sanctions were are digression from international norms meant to coerce an equally disruptive violation of international laws - the covert production of highly enriched uranium and the illegal development of nuclear weapons.

The implementation of trade restrictions on Chinese goods would probably start a trade war, and another Cold War seems to me to be a plausible outcome. I agree with your conclusion on that point.

[bmh_ca]

The relevant rules for trade wars are "national treatment" and "most favoured nation". You will see those terms quoted extensively in any legal trade dispute, notably before the WTO.

Labour laws per se do not violate mfn or nt, so long as the labour laws apply domestically as well as to imports (since trade wars are essentially about import tariffs).

The primary reason we do not apply labour law to the producers of imports is because labour is poorly organized, under funded, and lacks political will and/or forethought.

[riprowan]

Who in the US can authoritatively certify Chinese labor?

And what about the majority of iPhones which are not for sale in the USA? Can they be made with "slaves" since their destination is not the USA?

And if not (because Apple is a USA company) what keeps Apple from leaving the USA to escape the "no-slave law"? If Apple can't leave the USA in order to hire "slaves" to build phones for the non-USA market, how can they compete against a foreign company which can use "slaves?"

And if said foreign company builds an iPhone competitor using "slaves" for a cheaper price than the USA-made phone, how do you combat the black market in the USA for these "slave phones?" You just invented a local law enforcement problem.

[Joeri]

In order of appearance:

Who in the US can authoritatively certify Chinese labor?

You certify it just like anything else that is hard to inspect: require companies to sign binding documents that certify their goods as in compliance with the law, and fine them when proof is found this is not the case. It doesn't get rid of violations, but it does cut them down a lot.

And what about the majority of iPhones which are not for sale in the USA?

Just because one country jumps off a bridge, everyone else should follow suit? I find this kind of reasoning neither here nor there.

what keeps Apple from leaving the USA to escape the "no-slave law"

Nothing except profit. Why walk away from the most profitable markets you have, even if due to new legislation the profits are a little less obscene than they used to be?

how can they compete against a foreign company which can use "slaves?"

Because foreign companies wouldn't be able to use slaves if they want to sell their goods in the US or EU.

how do you combat the black market in the USA for these "slave phones?

There's already an illegal cheap phone circuit, for stolen phones. Besides, it might be a good thing if crime rings start pushing phones on people instead of pushing drugs. It would also be amusing if people would steal phones to fence them for money to buy illegal phones.

You can keep finding nits to pick, but ... I see point nor reason to do so.