World trade talks end in collapse

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
World trade talks end in collapse

Developing nations said they wanted to safeguard local farmers

Marathon talks in Geneva aimed at liberalising global trade have collapsed, the head of the World Trade Organisation has said.

Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".

The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.

The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.

India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.

Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7531099.stm
 
This is a good thing. Governments should have the right to protect their citizenry from negative impacts of possible quick market swings due to imports. Or if they choose to value the intrinsic self directedness and self-reliance of autarky that should be permissible. It is not inherently immoral or anything to say no to a deal. That's an actual free market.
 
uscitizen said:
Nope, But I take it you just read up on em in hopes of making me look stupid ?
Gald I caused you to learn something.
Click to expand...

Nice try. They've been going on for seven years so it's not something that just hit the news yesterday. I can't tell you every detail about them but I do know they involve multiple countries and nothing there is decided on a unilateral basis so you already proved with your comment that you know nothing about it.
 
cawacko said:
Nice try. They've been going on for seven years so it's not something that just hit the news yesterday. I can't tell you every detail about them but I do know they involve multiple countries and nothing there is decided on a unilateral basis so you already proved with your comment that you know nothing about it.
Click to expand...

Well Duhhh, I said I don't know what it is, how dense are you anyway?
Yes I proved that I did not know about it with my comment saying that I knew nothing about it....
 
uscitizen said:
Well Duhhh, I said I don't know what it is, how dense are you anyway?
Yes I proved that I did not know about it with my comment saying that I knew nothing about it....
Click to expand...

Alright, then I answered incorrectly and with an attitude I shouldn't have used. The Doha talks are multi-national trade talks that have been going for seven years negotiating over all kinds of trade issues, tariffs being one example. So while yes the Bush Administration does support free trade no one country can unilaterally do a deal within these talks.
 
cawacko said:
Alright, then I answered incorrectly and with an attitude I shouldn't have used. The Doha talks are multi-national trade talks that have been going for seven years negotiating over all kinds of trade issues, tariffs being one example. So while yes the Bush Administration does support free trade no one country can unilaterally do a deal within these talks.
Click to expand...


They support coerced trade, where nobody has the right to say no.
 
cawacko said:
Alright, then I answered incorrectly and with an attitude I shouldn't have used. The Doha talks are multi-national trade talks that have been going for seven years negotiating over all kinds of trade issues, tariffs being one example. So while yes the Bush Administration does support free trade no one country can unilaterally do a deal within these talks.
Click to expand...

True, but unless I misunderstood the article the USA was one onf the main countries opposing it based on not doing away with import tariffs under some conditions. this is not free trade as the Bush administration has espoused.

Not that I am personally complaining, just that it seems a bit of double speak from Bush.
 
uscitizen said:
True, but unless I misunderstood the article the USA was one onf the main countries opposing it based on not doing away with import tariffs under some conditions. this is not free trade as the Bush administration has espoused.

Not that I am personally complaining, just that it seems a bit of double speak from Bush.
Click to expand...

you said Bush supported free trade. Does that mean all free trade? without exceptions?

Edit: I've followed some this but don't have time at the moment to get into some of the details the U.S. was negotiating for.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
you said Bush supported free trade. Does that mean all free trade? without exceptions?

Edit: I've followed some this but don't have time at the moment to get into some of the details the U.S. was negotiating for.
Click to expand...


Why can't they protect their food growers from the ravages of foreign competition with a modicum of tariff or protectionism. It's wise to maintain food production capacity, should something ever happen and trade partners are cutoff, or there's a fuel shortage. There is an intrinsic value of maintaining the ability to make food. Why are you so zealous in your extremism? it's like someone at Cato Institute reamed you good with a big one and you like it.
 
uscitizen said:
free trade is free trade.

Still the bush apologist though.
Click to expand...

sometimes I wonder if you are really that dumb or you just allow such partisanship that it blocks the real smarts you have inside. I'll go with the latter.

All trade is not free trade. Weren't you just stating it's the right that likes little slogans? Well here you mock yourself? Is NAFTA free trade to you? People like Cypress claim its not because its a thousand (or thousands) of specific rules that does not qualify it as free trade. Others are not alone in that line of thinking. The point being not all trade is free trade.

The issue the U.S. has is that India wouldn't open its farm markets without this "special safeguard mechinism" as the article stated. It essentially would let countries raise up however much their tariffs if imports rose to quickly. Well that's crap and they should reject it. Because you support free trade doesn't mean you sign stupid legislation that would be punitive to you.

And yes the U.S. deserves blame too including Bush. He lost credibility from day one with his steel tariffs in the Midwest as thanks to those who voted for him and sucking up to the unions. The 2002 farm bill he signed also lost him credibility. The Democrats in Congress also deserve blame for the most recent farm bill and their protectionist policies in voting down trade agreements with our allies Columbia and South Korea.

So your mindless free trade is all trade slogan is great.
 
World trade talks end in collapse

Developing nations said they wanted to safeguard local farmers
Click to expand...


I don't think we have much room to complain, given how we subsidize our agricultural sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top