LOL, He's more than just a pretty Bush

by SixofNine 13 Replies latest jw friends

SixofNine

found this on a web-log and had to share:
Tit for tat retaliation is what destroys global trade and relationships.
And the current chief executive, if it were a pin up girl, would have really big tits.
Fancy tat.
stillajwexelder

Yes it is -- I am a real free trader -- but it has to be genuine fre trade and that includes the French andf others - genuine free trade no artificail tarrifs and no supporting your industries and banks - let then go under if they are weak -- TOTALLY FREE TRADE -- Let the best man win. No artificially keeping your currency weak -totally FREE TRADE
logansrun

I'm all for free tits.
Bradley
Simon

Steel or lumber tarrifs anyone?
seattleniceguy

Maybe someone can humor me on this. If trade is totally free and unregulated, doesn't that mean that whatever country can produce the goods cheapest will win, regardless of what they are doing to the environment or their human workforce? I've been trying to wrap my brain around this problem, because it seems hard to understand it correctly.
As I understand it, the concept of fair trade (as opposed to free trade) would be trading only with countries that enforce legislation to secure a good standards of human rights and environmental protection. Is this correct?
If the US were to go ahead with fair trade, wouldn't that seal the fate of many domestic industries, such as steel, since other nations can produce it more plentifully and cheaply? Is the idea that this would occur until said nations' currency was on par with the dollar, at which point it might be economically feasible to produce steel domestically again? Is the idea that fair trade gradually brings all participating nations to the same economic plane, even if it means massive upheavals during the process?
Thanks for any info or resources.
SNG
Heard this on NPR the other day:
Ask a question to 10 different economists and you'll get 12 different answers.
frenchbabyface

SNG
If the US were to go ahead with fair trade, wouldn't that seal the fate of many domestic industries, such as steel, since other nations can produce it more plentifully and cheaply? Is the idea that this would occur until said nations' currency was on par with the dollar, at which point it might be economically feasible to produce steel domestically again? Is the idea that fair trade gradually brings all participating nations to the same economic plane, even if it means massive upheavals during the process?

those questions are appealing ...

Heard this on NPR the other day:
Ask a question to 10 different economists and you'll get 12 different answers.
The problem is here ... Why ? Because most professional economist can't just get their head out of there books ... To me, most of them focused on the wrong solutions (academicale solutions) what they learned and mecanisme they know about. Also, I think that they forget that ideologie is not idelogical if it is logical ...

And those who's got IDEAS don't feel like to talk because they feel by now that people are not ready for it (too ideological to believe in and most of all dangerous for their carreer to talk about)

An economiste have been ban from TV because he was in favor of immigration (which is perfectly a base of economy ; immigration is a + it is only a question of management cause more you have people in a community more you have economical capacities it is simply logical). but He couldn't not talk publically anymore like his collegues !
I think that if WE GIVE THEM OUR SUPPORT I guess they'll DARE COMING OUT with real fair and logical solution.
Myxomatosis

let me just say, Free Trade, as it stands today, is not only crap, but destructive to developing countries, and a major negative force. Thanks in large part to the powerful West, the what I consider beastly World Trade Organization.

Free trade is all about corporate subsidies

The problem with it is it is not really free, I don't really know alot about this, and I am no expert, but I understand the numbers and I understand abject poverty as a result many times of the horrible free trade laws. I'll try and put into words what little I know, and perhaps then you will be interested to read somewhere you can actually learn more :)

For one thing, in agriculture (cos this is the market I know most about...:) the U.S. dept. of Agriculture can and does subsidize farmers HEAVILY (only U.S. farmers of course), causing their own crops to balloon, making SOME very wealthy farmers. (to give you a number:::: the U.S. has paid nearly 20 BILLION dollars a year to crop farmers....and they don't pay taxes, at least, my wealthy as hell relatives who are wheat farmers who make probably twice the income as my parents pay NO TAXES,,,whereas it's over 20,000 a year in taxes going to the government for my fam. but that's a separate issue no?)

This policy of the U.S. (which actually they had promised the international community to start scaling this back....nine years ago...they haven't delivered.) This cheap-grain policy is really beneficial to multinational agribusiness firms, large livestock operators, and importers?not crop farmers, now regularly selling grain below their cost of production. Big business wins.

The protests of the World Trade Organization down in Cancun Mexico last year where they were doing their talks (which got jack nothing accomplished) by the farmers came mostly as a result of America DUMPING its surplus corn onto Mexican markets, at greatly reduced prices since there was such a surplus. This action is absolutely terrible as seen by the effects it has on the Mexican corn farmers. They can't compete. They are not subsidized 13 Dodge Rams farmers. That is one of Mexicos biggest markets and we basically stole it by doing this.

Which is Ironic because of the US own actions against dumping within ITS borders::

Countervailing Duties: The US imposes import tariffs -- often 100% or more -- on goods which the government determines have been dumped.

Of course, the EU does the same, even more it seems, subsidizing 100bn in recent years.

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=8450

Anyways, probably someone on the boards who will know more about this, but as to this:

Seattleniceguy: (I was just in Seattle in November btw :)

Maybe someone can humor me on this. If trade is totally free and unregulated,

Myx: That's where most of this misunderstanding comes from. "Free" Trade is HEAVILY regulated.

SNG: doesn't that mean that whatever country can produce the goods cheapest will win,

Myx: not necessarily no. Look at the controversial move of Bush applying tarriffs to imported steel (which was just repealed last month) to protect U.S. steel, not because it was produced CHEAPER...

"The 1995 replacement of GATT by the WTO heightened concern among critics because its stronger enforcement powers represent a further shift in power from citizens and national governments to a global authority run by unelected bureaucrats. Business, academic, and government supporters applaud the WTO as a more muscular sheriff of the world trading system." Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh

SNG: regardless of what they are doing to the environment or their human workforce? I've been trying to wrap my brain around this problem, because it seems hard to understand it correctly.

Myx: they don't give a damn for the people. with the application of tarrifs, taxes, what have you, the "free trade" can benefit whom it will, whilst crippling nations with less power. The U.S. has immense power, if the U.S. were to reduce it's import tarriffs on some African goods by 1% it would not only compensate for, but exceed the actual amount of financial humanitarian aid they receive from the U.S., is that not a bit screwed up????

"Under the WTO, a nation cannot discriminate against products on the basis of how they are produced?be it by child labor or with environmentally destructive technologies. U.S. law, for example, has banned tuna imports from countries that allow long circular nets designed to catch tuna, but which also trapped and killed numerous dolphins. Yet in the eyes of the WTO, a can of tuna is a can of tuna, whether dolphins were killed in the production process or not."

Yeah, Fair Trade is different from "Free" Trade as it would place restrictions on imports based on concerns for environmental, labor aspects. In other words, Free Trade is business. Fair Trade is saying, hey, if you underpay your workforce, violate human rights in the production of your goods, or if you are in offense of environmental standards, you won't be getting our business.

Myx: hopefully!

SNG: If the US were to go ahead with fair trade, wouldn't that seal the fate of many domestic industries, such as steel, since other nations can produce it more plentifully and cheaply?

Myx: Well, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to necessarilly be simply who produces it "cheapest" in fact, I would think that if fair trade were to supercede free trade, then it would become necessary to pay employees and producers at least a fair amount, making the big corporations who like to prey on where they can acquire it cheapest, more balanced. Because they would have to settle for less profit for the big guys, whilst giving an actual livable salary to the workers. Of course, this is just one consequence... So, it would put them in a hard place, not having this gaping differential in labor where it's obvious who they'll choose. It will do more to even the markets, and I don't think that would see the downfall of American industries. We cannot be hindered in making trade fair for the world by a potential occurence when it is so clear and obvious, the discrepancy so massive, that it is vital that a change be made.

Here's a little bit on the NAFTA agreement, by the illustrious Noam Chomsky, it rather illustrates who benefits from 'free' trade....of course this is the North American agreement, but I think it's indicative of what happens in other sectors concerning free trade:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_FreeTrade.html

Is the idea that this would occur until said nations' currency was on par with the dollar, at which point it might be economically feasible to produce steel domestically again? Is the idea that fair trade gradually brings all participating nations to the same economic plane, even if it means massive upheavals during the process?

Myx: I might be wrong. I have very limited knowledge really, there's alot I don't know, but I would think That's not really it. It's more paying the peoples what they actually deserve, it would really make the big corporations accountable to pay producers in poorer countries they basically loot at this point what would be fair. I don't think that's the general idea, to bring nations currecy on par with the dollar. Though, the West does cripple developing countries through heavy taxation and tarriffs, protecting its markets. What is vital is that those discrimatory, I would say criminal practices be halted, but the ultimate goal is to help suffering countries, and stop powering through with crippling regulations because we can, and it is in some 'special' interests.

Thanks for any info or resources.

Myx: One of the best Websites that I'm a member that is really doing a fantastic job with awareness, and very proactive with regard to reform is the non-profit group Oxfam.

www.MakeTradeFair.com

www.Oxfam.org

I probably gave you alot of information that doesn't relate to what you were asking, but I though I put in my 50 cent. there's lots of great sites on the web re: WTO, trade, free trade. Fair trade is not perfect, but I do believe it is better.

hope everyone on the board is well!

Myxomatosis

two organizations share the initials WT....both seem to be intrisically filth.
Satanus

Six
What, no pictures??
SS
frenchbabyface

Myx: I might be wrong. I have very limited knowledge really (A), there's alot I don't know, but I would think That's not really it. It's more paying the peoples what they actually deserve, it would really make the big corporations accountable to pay producers in poorer countries they basically loot at this point what would be fair. I don't think that's the general idea, to bring nations currecy on par with the dollar. Though, the West does cripple developing countries through heavy taxation and tarriffs, protecting its markets. What is vital is that those discrimatory, I would say criminal practices be halted, but the ultimate goal is to help suffering countries, and stop powering through with crippling regulations because we can, and it is in some 'special' interests.
... Enough to get the point !!! ... you are very modest !!!
Ok now here is the deal for them : Those who wants a lot of monney :
(win more on the numbers of sells than the price)
More people in good shape / more economy = more trades = more numbers of sells ! (THEY STILL CAN WIN IF THEY HELP !!!)
frenchbabyface

I mean : Acting like US and ALIKE are doing is like eating the egg instead of letting the egg being mature and multiply whith all his ressources ... mores eggs !!! for everyone - even for them

IF we don't wan't to be lead by either china or usa and alike and gives the whole world a chance we have to try SOMETHING ! and really get what we deserve

LOL, He's more than just a pretty Bush

Share this