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 : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (8820)	11/7/1997 3:10:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Fair enough. If he wants it to pass, he'll have to negotiate a treaty that Congress can accept at face. It seems to me that a negotiator would need that to have credibility. I guess I'll have to start watching the news or reading the paper again. I've obviously been doing a poor job of keeping up with current events. I wonder what the distraction might be......

To: DMaA who wrote (8820)	11/7/1997 4:16:00 PM
From: Dee Jay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

ah yes, the advice and consent clause ... but when a Presidential nomination cannot even be presented to the entire Senate for a vote, thanks to that troglodyte Jesse Helms,how does the Senate fulfill its responsibilities under the Constitution? (the William Weld nomination to be Ambassador to Mexico). Dee Jay

To: DMaA who wrote (8820)	11/8/1997 11:24:00 AM
From: Jeffery E. Forrest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

The opinion's expressed in the following are those of the author. In no way should they be misconstrued as being those of yours truly.<G> ----------------------------------------------------------- Fast track is the wrong track I'm in favor of trade. The more the better. I think free trade is good, and fair trade is better. I support negotiating trade agreements with our trading partners to lower tariffs and open markets. And for you Smoot-Hawley hecklers, I don't sound like Mr. Smoot and don't look like Mr. Hawley. But, I've had a bellyful of the thoughtless ranting by economists and politicians, and some editorial writers, about free trade and "fast track." It's safe to say that none of them has ever lost their job because of a bad trade agreement. Let's take inventory. The U.S. has had 21 years of uninterrupted trade deficits. Last year we hit a record $191 billion in our merchandise trade deficit. We've lost every trade negotiation we entered over the past 20 years. We sign the paper, shove it through the Congress and our trade deficit goes up. We do a trade agreement with Canada and our trade deficit with Canada doubles. We do an agreement with Mexico and our $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico collapses into a $16 billion deficit. We approve the GATT agreement, and our trade deficit hits an all-time record high. Our trade deficit with Japan stays at $50 billion to $60 billion per year. Our trade deficit with China is mushrooming to well over $40 billion a year. That is what we call success? Not where I grew up. So if our trade policies aren't working, what do we do to change them? The President asks for fast track authority to negotiate new trade pacts and have them considered by a Congress that is prevented from amending them. That is the same tired policy that has failed us in the past. I think it's time for some changes. For starters, let's dispense with some of the shibboleths usually hurled at those who oppose fast track trade authority. This debate is not between those who believe in free trade and those who don't. It is not between those who want to compete in the growing world economy and a bunch of xenophobic, anti-growth protectionists. I favor free trade. I want the U.S. to be competitive in the global economy. I want U.S. businesses to have greater access to foreign markets. I am pro-growth. To make our trade policies work we have to address two issues. First, what are the rules of fair trade? Is it fair trade when a producer in a foreign land can hire children, put them in unsafe workplaces, pay them a dime an hour, dump chemicals in the water and pollution in the air and then send the products from their factories to store shelves in the United States? Should U.S. producers who have to comply with child labor standards, minimum wage requirements, anti-pollution laws and more be forced to compete with those who have no such restrictions? The answer should be clear. The new global economy and the rules of trade that support it must require responsible compliance with standards that we know are reasonable and fair, dealing with both labor and the environment. Second, are we going to have the nerve and will to require foreign countries to open their markets to American goods just as we open the U.S. market to foreign goods? Trade must be a two way street. Eliminating the huge trade deficits the U.S. is experiencing need not lead to a restriction on imports - rather it should persuade us to demand that foreign markets be open to U.S. goods. We need to summon the courage to make that happen. When other countries do nothing to stop the pirating of our intellectual property, we ought to take action. When other countries violate our anti-dumping laws by dumping goods in our country below cost, we ought to take action. When other countries close markets they've previously agreed to open for U.S. producers, we ought to take action. When our trading partners begin running huge surpluses with us and restrict access to their own domestic markets to U.S. producers, we ought to take action. So as we debate President Clinton's proposal to give him "fast track" authority for new trade agreements, I intend to propose new criteria for judging whether new trade agreements are in the best interest of this country. Any trade treaties we negotiate should do the following: * Make progress in eliminating our trade deficit by increasing U.S. exports and requiring free trade rules. * Create more and better jobs and a higher standard of living here at home. * Prohibit "trap door" agreements that make tariff reductions meaningless when huge changes in currency values occur without any adjustments to tariffs. * Include strict and mandatory enforcement provisions when trading partners do not live up to their promises. * Make certain that trade agreements do not weaken national security or the U.S. industrial base. Surprisingly, U.S. trade negotiators are not now required to work for agreements that accomplish these objectives. Not surprisingly, they have produced a long series of trade agreements that don't measure up. Sen. Byron Dorgan is a North Dakota Democrat North America, United States of America, Eastern United States, Midatlantic United States, District of Columbia The Washington Times Author: Byron Dorgan December 03, 1997