That is the exact same thing any nation could do to us in the absence of WTO.
Sure, we could go back to the days of trade wars. We could go back to protectionism and all that got for us. Heck, we can do that under WTO. It's OUR decision.
How soon do you think it will be until we convert to the Euro?
bump
"But why should America's economic fortunes be placed in the hands of any foreign body, headed by any foreign official of any ideological background?"
We shouldn't and in no way have to comply. American citizens paying taxes or punative awards in any way shape or form is a violation of our sovergnity. Also in no way can any official or representitive of the US government grant control of anything sovergn American to a foreign body or state. The fear of a trade war is not a reason to commit treason against the right of American workers, property owners, or business in violation of our Constitution.
I am asuming the consequences of the abovementioned treason has not been accurately explained to our President?
Or could it be he has been advised that the American people really do not care if a little bit of freedom is given up in exchange for a better price on French Whine or Sourkraut. Screw them cotton farmers you say? Screw the US steel producers you say? Screw US companies totally YOU SAY??
This is all about money. Those who have it get to keep it and make a lot more, those who don't have money get the shaft. I see how it works. Anyone ever heard of the word Rev O Lou Shun??
This is one of the things about some of the people in our government that REALLY IRKS ME! They act like they are above the rest of us and know what is best for us. Bush is another mouthpiece of incremental world government, and in this case is no better than Kerry or Nader or whoever because he is backing down from the socialists in the EU.
Since when should we ever take a threat from the French seriously???????
I tend to agree that the WTO is biased, but international trade negotiations are difficult anyway, and they are not subject to our courts because nobody is obliged to accept our terms or trade with us.
Also, the anti-Bush bias in this article is palpable. Bush didn't sign us onto Free Trade--that's been an ongoing process for the past 50 or 60 year, mostly in reaction to the devastating trade barriers that went up in the 1930s.
"President Bush's enthusiasm for WTO-supervised global "free trade" explains why "you could almost hear a collective sigh of relief" from foreign capitals over his re-election, stated the December 2 Christian Science Monitor."
Horse manure. Did any Freepers hear a collective sigh of relief when Bush won the election. Rather the contrary. All around the world the media and the opinion leaders were bitching and complaining. Chirac's nose is still out of joint.
A DLC New Democrat Third Way progressive, two conservative "free traders," and a Communist.
The WTO.
"The WTO represents the rules-based regime of the policy of economic globalization. The central operating principal of the WTO is that commercial interests should supersede all others. Any obstacles in the path of operations and expansion of global business enterprise must be subordinated. In practice these 'obstacles' are usually policies or democratic processes that act on behalf of working people, labor rights, environmental protection, human rights, consumer rights, social justice, local culture, and national sovereignty."
So who among the New Democrat Third Way progressives, conservative "free traders," and Communists will object if the WTO took on the additional tasks of enforcing social justice, racial justice, economic justice, and environmental justice?
That's the plan.
So, conservative "free traders." When the New Democrat Third Way progressives and Communists ask if you sell rope, RUN!
Why is 43 a supporter of the WTO? Why does he back NAFTA? Why does he champion illegal immigration?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer these questions, folks.
So you want to scrap a trade pact that for the most part benefits us in order to protect cotton subsidies? That's crazy. We get much more in terms of keeping foreign capital markets open via the WTO.
Cotton subsidies are socialist - no really, they are literally socialist, New Deal nonsense. If cotton producers can't compete without subsidies then they need to go out of business. That's called the free market.
Nor does the WTO cut into our sovereignty since we can leave at any time if it is no longer an advantage to us. On the other hand, if the WTO does stop stupid government regulation that redistributes money from winners to losers, then more power to it.
"The American cotton grower," but a component part of a small segment of America's new welfare rich, "the American 'farmer'" -- and one who has long waxed fat on the confiscated wealth of America's most creative, innovative and industrious, that has for far too long been squandered on him -- is pissing and moaning about the WTO?
Those who profit from the bureaucratic squandering upon them of the confiscated wealth of others, would best shut the Hell up and get real jobs before complaining too loudly about the "bureaucratic influences" in their lives!
[That said, our beloved fraternal republic's feral gummint has no business subjugating our National Sovereignty to any such malignant obscenity as the un and/or to such of that abjectly and sytemically corrupted and criminal organization's metasticized offshoots and outgrowths as the wto!]
"Properly understood, free trade results when a mutually beneficial exchange occurs between buyers and sellers, unimpeded by government intervention.
It sure would be nice if this fact was not glossed over.
This piece is littered with inconsistencies and half truths. Just one for instance, and as far as I know, is the author's discussion on regional trade agreements. As far as what I've read, regional trade agreements are made outside of the WTO's frame work and they have no "jurisdiction" over enforcing the terms of the agreement. If I am wrong about this, someone please link to the information from a reputable source.