The US is a "wealthy people", and we clean up "our" environment by
polluting other people's (such as Iraq). Why risk leaking our oil all
over the Alaskan tundra when we can let Iraq take the eco-hit, and save
our own? That's the thinking.

That's an interesting way to look at trade. I always thought that the
people who were getting paid were in the driver's seat -- but your theory
seems to put the buyer's in control.

In trade, each one tries to get what they don't have, and gives away
what they do have. Someone who is hungry trades money for food. Who is
"in control" - the store owner or the hugry patron? Does it matter to
the question whether the food in question is nutritious or not?

Some who are destitue trade sex for money. Who is "in control" here -
the whore or the john? In both cases, the trade occurs at a mutually
decided price; nobody is in control in a free market (and I'm not
presuming a non-free market).

What is significant however is that the =reason= somebody is trading
money for food is that they are hungry - something whose origin is
beyond their control, and whose solution presents itself in the trade.

In the case of trading garbage for money, we are doing it with towns who
need to overlook the long term consequences of having a garbage dump on
Main Street in exchange for the short term benefits of getting their
police force paid. The one "in control" (in the sense that I am
interpreting your comment for my quoted example) is the one that doesn't
have to consider the long term consequence of a trade. The one under
(more) pressure is the one that needs to subjugate the long term
consequences for the short term gain.

We can discuss forever just what those long term consequences are, and
how serious they are, but so long as I am hungry -now-, I'll pay too
much for a not-very-healthy hot dog if that's all that's available.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.