Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132711)	10/9/2001 12:50:28 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164687

i will cede you the point because it's not worth the effort to differentiate. some battles are not worth fighting. why should i bother arguing on behalf of ge anyway. nearly half of their employees are outside the united states.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132711)	10/9/2001 1:55:53 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164687

Is EU Policy Eroding the Sovereignty of Non-Member States? by Jeremy Rabkin Professor Cornell University Presented at the AEI conference Trends in Global Governance: Do They Threaten American Sovereignty? aei.org

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132711)	10/9/2001 2:06:10 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

Letter from the National Business Coalition on E-commerce and Privacy to the US Commerce Department g2news.com 1. Interface With U.S. Law The EU privacy principles that would be effectively imposed on American business by this agreement far exceed any privacy requirements that have ever before been imposed in the United States, thus raising a very real question of national sovereignty. The Coalition questions the appropriateness of this importation of EU privacy standards into the United States -- especially at a time when the U.S. Congress and state legislatures are addressing what kind of privacy policy should apply in this country. To date, the EU has been unwilling to accept the privacy provisions of either the Financial Services Modernization Act (the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act") or the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act as "adequate" for purposes of the safe harbor. The EU's failure to accept these U.S. laws as "adequate" implies that U.S. financial services organizations and other businesses, broadly defined, must accept EU standards in toto or face the serious consequences of possible denial of data flows, even if these organizations are in complete compliance with U.S. law. We believe that U.S. organizations ought not to be put in the position of having to comply with potentially conflicting privacy regimes whenever personal data crosses a border. The free flow of data across national borders is the keystone of the information age and one of the engines driving the global economy. To establish a system that could require conflicting regimes for U.S. business organizations would risk undermining rather than supporting U.S. competitiveness. This concern is particularly germane since, given the breadth of the definition of "financial institution" in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a broad swath of U.S. industry -- not just companies traditionally characterized as "financial institutions" -- could, and quite likely would, be adversely affected. For the U.S. to accept an agreement with the EU that does not recognize the adequacy of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act or the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, even with the understanding that those statutes will be the subject of further talks, reduces most leverage that the U.S. might have to obtain eventual coverage for financial services under safe harbor. We therefore believe that ideally the U.S. should not finalize the safe harbor agreement without the EU agreeing to the adequacy of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act for purposes of the safe harbor; however, at a minimum, the U.S. should continue to negotiate this critical issue with the EU. 2. Competitiveness Issues The safe harbor agreement in effect establishes a non-tariff trade barrier in that a U.S. person cannot do business with the EU unless that U.S. person agrees to play by EU rules. This trade barrier will disadvantage U.S. companies in relation to their competitors in other areas which do not have to abide by the principles of the EU Directive. Apart from the United States, the EU has yet to negotiate equivalent safe harbor agreements with any other nation or to impose the EU Directive on organizations from any other country outside the EU. We believe the U.S. should receive a commitment from the EU that the standstill on enforcement will be maintained in a manner that ensures that U.S. organizations are treated in law and in practice according to the same rules and standards that are actually applied by the EU to organizations based in other non-EU countries. The U.S. routinely makes national treatment and nondiscrimination a precondition to entering into international trade agreements and should receive an explicit assurance within the safe harbor framework that the EU has so agreed here. U.S. organizations should not be placed in the position of having to comply with EU rules that are not simultaneously and effectively applied to organizations in other countries that may process the data of EU citizens, including such major data processing centers as Canada, India and Japan, among others. We therefore recommend that the Department of Commerce consult with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, if it is not already doing so, in order to assess the full extent of the impact of the safe harbor agreement on U.S. competitiveness during this period when other countries are free to operate without complying with the EU privacy requirements.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132711)	10/9/2001 2:20:34 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING AND RESEARCH unitar.org GLOBAL TRADE SOVEREIGNTY AND SUBNATIONAL AUTONOMY Over the past 50 years, and particularly during the past decade, nations have sought to expand international commerce by removing trade barriers, both the physical and procedural variety at border crossings, as well as substantive laws and regulations that restrict equal access of firms in one nation to the markets of another. Any international trade agreement restricts national sovereignty and local autonomy, particularly laws and regulations related to food, agriculture, environment, resource management, health, and economic development. International trade agreements typically seek to remove discrimination between local origin products and services and those from others. Some trade agreements protect local rules through selective exceptions or reservations. It remains to be seen whether the emerging international law undergirding trade will improve or undermine democracy at the state and local levels. Trade and Subnational Autonomy Since World War II nations sought to encourage multilateral commerce by reducing or removing trade barriers. The various negotiation rounds under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), particularly GATT-1994, the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), World Trade Organization (WTO) discussions, and other multilateral for a have sought to free capital and labor by facilitating equal access to markets. Some analysts believe that this past decade's sustained economic expansion reflects the increased opportunities made possible by the international trade system. Despite challenges to this process by the Seattle and Washington, D.C. demonstrations this past year, the process of trade liberalization continues. Even once protective nations (such as Argentina, China, and even Switzerland) today are keen to join the system. The pace is increasing within the European Union (EU), as it adopts the Euro and considers admitting 12 or 13 new members through the "accession" process. One necessary consequence of multilateral trade agreements is that actions which level the playing field by allowing equal access to markets simultaneously restrict traditional national sovereignty and local autonomy. There are two key provisions common in most comprehensive multilateral trade agreements, such as those associated with the EU, GATT, WTO, and NAFTA: a nondiscrimination clause and national implementation obligations. Conclusions Multilateral trade agreements are likely to change subnational government roles. Global trade is creating an imperative for the rule of multinational law as a means to secure mobility of trade, capital, labor, and services. It is hard to know whether such change will be beneficial or harmful to the citizens who are subject to the affected state, regional, or local jurisdiction. Trade agreements do not set common international standards, but rather seek to secure a so-called "equal" playing field: local products are not allowed to have structural advantages over foreign products. However, it is clear that trade can facilitate common international standards for either good or ill, compromise the sovereignty of national governments, and reduce the autonomy of provincial, state and regional, or local governments.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132711)	10/9/2001 2:44:10 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate Our National Sovereignty is Violated thelibertycommittee.org by Congressman Ron Paul An extraordinary event occurred this week in Washington during the final days of the 106th Congress, an event that did not receive comment in either the media or the halls of Congress, save for my office. This event had been termed "unthinkable" only a few months earlier. It occurred despite clear constitutional prohibitions and at the expense of our precious national sovereignty. For the first time in the history of our country, Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has begun to dictate American laws. More specifically, Congress voted to change our tax laws relating to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs), solely because the WTO appellate panel deemed that our FSC tax rules constituted a "subsidy" - the EU contingent in the WTO had brought a complaint to the panel. Our FSC rules simply allow U.S. corporations to exempt a small portion of income earned abroad from taxes. No "subsidy" is involved; no tax dollars are given to FSCs. Moreover, most EU countries do not tax their corporations on any income earned abroad. Still, the appellate panel agreed with the EU and gave the U.S an October 1st deadline to change our tax laws. I have opposed our membership in the WTO throughout my tenure in Congress. I strongly support true free trade, which occurs in the absence of government tariffs. The WTO, however, represents the worst form of government-managed trade. More importantly, however, our involvement in the WTO threatens national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly vests the power to regulate trade solely with Congress, and Congress cannot cede with mandates in areas such as environmental protections, worker rights, and trade policy. Congress either blindly or willfully chose to ignore this very serious constitutional conflict when it voted in favor of WTO membership. However, a Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules," (emphasis added). Earlier this year I sought to address this terrible threat to our sovereignty by introducing a resolution withdrawing us from the WTO. I explained my concerns in a brief to the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, pointing out the unconstitutionality of our involvement. I warned that the WTO could begin dictating our environmental, labor and tax laws. These arguments were met with hostility and condescension. Subcommittee members stated that we needed the WTO to avoid "trade wars," and that the U.S. Congress would never change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO. "Unthinkable" was how one member put it. Judging by this week's vote, the "unthinkable" has become reality. We should never change our national laws at the behest of any international organization. Congress simply has ceded its legislative authority to the WTO, and it is shameful that this action likely will go unnoticed by the American people. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing their foreign income. The FSC measure will not appease the Europeans; the EU already has indicated that the changes are unsatisfactory to them. We stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war with the EU, even though we were told that the WTO was needed to avoid such conflicts. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds. Rest assured that the WTO assault on American sovereignty will not end here. What will happen when the Europeans object to another area of our tax laws? Will we change the way we tax individuals also? Perhaps the Europeans will object to our relatively liberal immigration laws, because they resent losing their talented citizens to America. Whatever the issue, the threat remains the same. Americans who care about sovereignty have every reason to be outraged.