GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: PartyTime who started this subject	2/10/2004 8:09:05 PM
From: jttmab	of 173976

This Is Free Trade? Tuesday, February 10, 2004; Page A22 THE U.S. TRADE representative, Robert B. Zoellick, has set off on a world tour to revive global trade talks. This is a wise move, because it would be hard for Mr. Zoellick to face his friends at home after the Australian trade deal announced over the weekend. Even more than the Central American pact negotiated recently, the Australian accord is a triumph for the protectionist interests that went behind Mr. Zoellick's back to the White House and Congress. The agricultural products in which Australia is competitive have been mostly cut out of the deal: Removing barriers in U.S. law that keep out Australian beef will take 18 years; the dairy liberalization is expected to increase Australian exports to the United States by a paltry 0.17 percent of U.S. production; and the U.S. sugar lobby managed to prevent any liberalization whatever. The Centre for International Economics in Australia had calculated that a real free-trade deal might boost the country's annual exports to the United States by $1.2 billion. But $260 million of that was expected to come from dairy liberalization and $440 million from sugar. By refusing to open those two markets -- a refusal that entailed doing without key concessions from Australia -- the United States wiped out more than half the agreement's potential. There are two justifications for trade deals with individual countries. The first is political: The possibility of such deals may give the United States leverage over countries that are dragging their feet in world trade talks. This justification seems weak right now. Despite Mr. Zoellick's energetic diplomacy, world trade talks have stagnated, as have plans for a free-trade zone in the Americas. The second justification is that bilateral trade deals provide an economic boost. But this happens only if you reduce trade barriers that are holding back efficient producers, such as Australian farmers. Cutting barriers on cell phone imports from Honduras or Australia changes nothing. Cutting tariffs on Central America's borderline competitive apparel manufacturers helps them sell a bit at the expense of other countries, such as China, which is a strategic plus. But this "trade diversion" does not lower prices to U.S. consumers, so it doesn't make them richer. And there is less of a strategic case for helping rich Australia at the expense of other trading partners. Mr. Zoellick calculated that flawed trade deals are better than none, so he went ahead with Australia. It is true that Australian tariff cuts will boost U.S. manufactured exports. But the Australian sugar sham sends a signal to protectionists: The Bush administration will cave if you say "boo" to it. After the Central American pact promised the region a tiny crack of access to the U.S. sugar market, the lobby went into high gear to prevent a repeat with Australia. Now the lobby has won. The world's poor farmers who are waiting for a chance to export their way out of poverty will be the losers, as will shoppers in your local supermarket. washingtonpost.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next