Sweden rejects the Euro

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-19 11:09pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Ahh and what do you give the third world?
Jobs that on average pay higher wages than the local companies do.

yet they still cannot afford heathcare and decent education..some pay.

sure they can trade with America, but only if the stuff in the product is mostly American made, and then its still subject to quota. But naturally you, by treaty, ensure that American goods and companies get unfettered acess to Africa..nahh your not to hard on them

You do realize that there are many third world countries elsewhere in the world?[/quote]

I know, I also know that they are not treated any better thanks to American protectionism.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-19 11:16pm

yet they still cannot afford heathcare and decent education..some pay.

People could also not afford healthcare and decent education during the Stone Age. If only they had been paid higher wages!

I know, I also know that they are not treated any better thanks to American protectionism.

Not really. The U.S. doesn't have that strict a protectionist policy in place involving trade with Asia.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-19 11:41pm

Durran Korr wrote:
yet they still cannot afford heathcare and decent education..some pay.
People could also not afford healthcare and decent education during the Stone Age. If only they had been paid higher wages!

So, you say that an American company pays more than a local company yet neither can give peeople heath care and education, so the American company must be better despite the profits it makes off this virtual slave labour

I know, I also know that they are not treated any better thanks to American protectionism.

Not really. The U.S. doesn't have that strict a protectionist policy in place involving trade with Asia.[/quote]

Sure...try and export clothing from there to America and listen to the howls..

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-19 11:46pm

So, you say that an American company pays more than a local company yet neither can give peeople heath care and education, so the American company must be better despite the profits it makes off this virtual slave labour

Yup, pretty much. A higher wage is a higher wage (and I'm not talking about a slight difference here, the difference is considerable among lower income laborers).

Sure...try and export clothing from there to America and listen to the howls..

I was unaware that union caterwauling and corporate whines were equal to protectionist policy.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-19 11:55pm

Durran Korr wrote:
So, you say that an American company pays more than a local company yet neither can give peeople heath care and education, so the American company must be better despite the profits it makes off this virtual slave labour
Yup, pretty much. A higher wage is a higher wage (and I'm not talking about a slight difference here, the difference is considerable among lower income laborers).

The difference is not enough to get an education or heath care so it hardly matters.

Sure...try and export clothing from there to America and listen to the howls..

I was unaware that union caterwauling and corporate whines were equal to protectionist policy.[/quote]

They are when they lobby the white house about those 'oh so hurtfull to American jobs cheap forign imports' and get the protection they want.
And it happnes constantly. NZ and Australia export lamb to the US so what happens? your farmers cry Dubya a river, and 'voila'! instant tarriffs and more quota restrictions. Not that the EU is much better..worse a lot of the time, but that does not change the facts of it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-20 12:04am

The difference is not enough to get an education or heath care so it hardly matters.

19th-century American laborers could afford neither healthcare nor education; nor could poor people in Hong Kong about 60 years ago. Higher standards of living take time to develop. And a higher wage is still a higher wage; anytime it's higher, people are going to be better off.

They are when they lobby the white house about those 'oh so hurtfull to American jobs cheap forign imports' and get the protection they want.

No, they don't, chief. A few industries get protection (steel, lumber, agriculture); most do not.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-20 08:44am

Durran Korr wrote:
The difference is not enough to get an education or heath care so it hardly matters.
19th-century American laborers could afford neither healthcare nor education; nor could poor people in Hong Kong about 60 years ago. Higher standards of living take time to develop. And a higher wage is still a higher wage; anytime it's higher, people are going to be better off.

So what? that may have indeed been tha case, but that is nothing more than an excuse to justify what can only be described as immoral.

They are when they lobby the white house about those 'oh so hurtfull to American jobs cheap forign imports' and get the protection they want.

No, they don't, chief. A few industries get protection (steel, lumber, agriculture); most do not.[/quote]

And agriculture, textiles, happen to be areas which directly affect development in third world nations.
The US and such organisations as the IMF expect that in return for aid that countries open up their markets to direct competion and investment and food imports and reduse or abolish their subsidies/tarriffs to their own farmers and textile workers. The US argricultural subsidies are such that to dispose of surpluses they are sold off at below the cost of production via commercial channels. This means that farmers in the third world cannot get an economic return on their own goods thanks to the fact that they cannot get subsidied inputs like fertiliser. Tarriffs on Rice imports to the US are at 100%.
Your own policies help to make basket case out of these nations.
As to textiles..sure the US will import them but only if the bulk of the materials are US sourced.

Free trade to America is freedom for US to have uninhibited access to other markets while having a base that is protected from comptetion. Some free trade.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-20 12:04pm

So what? that may have indeed been tha case, but that is nothing more than an excuse to justify what can only be described as immoral.

Paying above the market wage is not immoral.

And agriculture, textiles, happen to be areas which directly affect development in third world nations.
The US and such organisations as the IMF expect that in return for aid that countries open up their markets to direct competion and investment and food imports and reduse or abolish their subsidies/tarriffs to their own farmers and textile workers. The US argricultural subsidies are such that to dispose of surpluses they are sold off at below the cost of production via commercial channels. This means that farmers in the third world cannot get an economic return on their own goods thanks to the fact that they cannot get subsidied inputs like fertiliser. Tarriffs on Rice imports to the US are at 100%.
Your own policies help to make basket case out of these nations.
As to textiles..sure the US will import them but only if the bulk of the materials are US sourced.

Free trade to America is freedom for US to have uninhibited access to other markets while having a base that is protected from comptetion. Some free trade.

Well, if I had ever claimed that agriculture did not have protection, or tried to sell that protection as a good thing, you would have a point. And U.S. agricultural subsidies don't do nearly as much damage as EU subsidies, at least not quantitatively.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-09-20 12:15pm

The US argricultural subsidies are such that to dispose of surpluses they are sold off at below the cost of production via commercial channels. This means that farmers in the third world cannot get an economic return on their own goods thanks to the fact that they cannot get subsidied inputs like fertiliser. Tarriffs on Rice imports to the US are at 100%

Really? Do you have a source on the rice tariffs? Rice here is pretty cheap, a 50lb bag at the local Asian Grocery store is like 15 bucks. Im pretty sure it is from overseas too.

Every economy does some sort of subsidizing. Our state and federal govt help burden the cost of water to California farmers making us one of the world's powerhouses in agriculture. I do think it is a waste for us to grow some crops like rice here. It is a waste of water for such an arid state.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-21 12:12am

Durran Korr wrote:
So what? that may have indeed been tha case, but that is nothing more than an excuse to justify what can only be described as immoral.
Paying above the market wage is not immoral.

It is when that rate is still is not a living wage and the company that pays it makes profits that could easily absorb a decent wage.

And agriculture, textiles, happen to be areas which directly affect development in third world nations.
The US and such organisations as the IMF expect that in return for aid that countries open up their markets to direct competion and investment and food imports and reduse or abolish their subsidies/tarriffs to their own farmers and textile workers. The US argricultural subsidies are such that to dispose of surpluses they are sold off at below the cost of production via commercial channels. This means that farmers in the third world cannot get an economic return on their own goods thanks to the fact that they cannot get subsidied inputs like fertiliser. Tarriffs on Rice imports to the US are at 100%.
Your own policies help to make basket case out of these nations.
As to textiles..sure the US will import them but only if the bulk of the materials are US sourced.

Free trade to America is freedom for US to have uninhibited access to other markets while having a base that is protected from comptetion. Some free trade.

Well, if I had ever claimed that agriculture did not have protection, or tried to sell that protection as a good thing, you would have a point.

Now that isn't fair. American protectionism isn't too hard on third world countries, and it won't be unless either the Buchananites or Naderites get their way (or even Dean, for that matter).

Your nation helps ensure third world nations cant get on their feet. Belive it or not, but food is nessary to get a nation moving, your agricultural subsideis do an enourmous amount of damage. The thing is that its not just food either, but thats the main thing.

And U.S. agricultural subsidies don't do nearly as much damage as EU subsidies, at least not quantitatively.

This is true..but its also irrrelivant to the discussion. Protectionism is a bad thing and the US, Japan and the EU are the major culprits.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-09-21 12:43am

Stuart Mackey wrote:This is true..but its also irrrelivant to the discussion. Protectionism is a bad thing and the US, Japan and the EU are the major culprits.

Quite true...and it was Japan and the EU that the G-22 protested as obstructionist, when they refused to cut subsidies to the level that the agricultural nations of the WTO desired. The United States had agreed to cut subsidies to the desired levels, but the other two big powers refused.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-21 12:54am

The Dark wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:This is true..but its also irrrelivant to the discussion. Protectionism is a bad thing and the US, Japan and the EU are the major culprits.
Quite true...and it was Japan and the EU that the G-22 protested as obstructionist, when they refused to cut subsidies to the level that the agricultural nations of the WTO desired. The United States had agreed to cut subsidies to the desired levels, but the other two big powers refused.

Indeed, so the US feels compelled to retain its situation as is.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-09-21 01:25am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
The Dark wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:This is true..but its also irrrelivant to the discussion. Protectionism is a bad thing and the US, Japan and the EU are the major culprits.
Quite true...and it was Japan and the EU that the G-22 protested as obstructionist, when they refused to cut subsidies to the level that the agricultural nations of the WTO desired. The United States had agreed to cut subsidies to the desired levels, but the other two big powers refused.
Indeed, so the US feels compelled to retain its situation as is.

The US is bound by WTO guidelines to not manipulate WTO markets by independently negotiating with member nations in areas under the aegis of the talks. When the talks fell through between the G-22 and the US/Japan/EU subsidized farm nations, the US was bound by international law due to the lack of compromise from Europe and Japan. The EU refused to discuss any dates for eliminating their $3.3 billion in agricultural export support, which was the major sticking point that led to Malaysia and India refusing to discuss the Singapore issues. I will admit that the US needs to eliminate the 1954 bill that forces subsidies; however, we did negotiate in good faith at this summit, something not all nations can claim.