U.S. Trade Representative Reviews Progress on Free Trade Goals

After more than four years of negotiations with no breakthrough on the toughest issues, and a failed ministerial meeting in Cancun, expectations for Hong Kong were low. The December meeting of the World Trade Organization in Hong Kong kept the Doha Development Agenda trade talks alive.

Progress was made as more than 150 nations gathered to give developing countries a further stake in the global trading system and move forward in efforts to break down barriers to the free flow of agricultural and manufactured goods and services.

We were able to set a date of 2013 for the end of agricultural export subsidies and agree to a number of development initiatives. Perhaps most important, there was a recognition among trade ministers that we cannot afford to miss this once-in-a-generation opportunity to energize the global trading system, create economic growth and lift millions of people out of poverty. The consensus that more open trade is an important development tool is stronger as a result of our commitments in Hong Kong.

At the same time, we have a lot of hard work ahead to ensure a successful outcome for the Doha Round by the end of next year. The United States will continue to play a leadership role.

In a United Nations speech this fall, President Bush laid out a bold vision for open trade to bring renewed economic growth, hope and prosperity to the developing world. We believe that expanded market access, particularly in agriculture, is the key to a final agreement. I feel even more strongly about that after consulting with trading partners in Hong Kong, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America. As World Bank studies make clear, the biggest gains for developing countries will come from opening markets to their agricultural output. What is more, an agreement to make deep cuts in tariffs and open up quotas on agriculture goods will pave the way for success in the Doha Round's other goals for reducing trade-distorting agriculture subsidies, cutting tariffs on industrial goods and obtaining meaningful new openings for services. We need to redouble efforts across the board, but agriculture is the linchpin for the success of the Round.

One reason the United States is more optimistic after Hong Kong is the meeting helped give the developing countries, most particularly the least-developed countries, a bigger stake in the global trading system. This came through a series of trade measures to support development.

We formalized a landmark breakthrough in the rules governing intellectual property rights that balances the needs of protecting patent rights with delivering life-saving medicines to areas hardest hit by disease. This will be of great importance to countries struggling to cope with HIV/AIDS, malaria and other health crises.

In addition, nations reinforced their commitment to development with significant new pledges of so-called aid for trade. This will help create the legal, administrative and physical infrastructures needed to help developing countries participate fully in the market openings we hope to achieve in the Doha Round. The United States is proud to lead the world in providing such assistance, and as part of the Doha Round, we announced a doubling of our contributions over the next five years from the current level of roughly $1.3 billion a year to $2.7 billion annually.

Also, we committed to duty-free/quota-free treatment for goods from the world's poorest countries. The United States is already the most open market in the world to these products. In Hong Kong, all developed countries agreed to provide even more trade opportunities for the least-developed.

What is more, we set the stage for cutting costly and confusing customs procedures. This will help facilitate and reduce the costs of trading between developing nations and also help them attract foreign investment. Two years ago at the WTO talks in Cancun, this issue of trade facilitation was a major stumbling block. But in Hong Kong, thanks to the work of a diverse group of countries, we were able to record real progress.

In Hong Kong, I was struck by the cooperation among countries at different levels of development and from all parts of the world. The long-held notion of a world divided by rich countries and poor countries, or North and South, is beginning to be replaced by a system in which countries of diverse make-ups work together in pursuit of common objectives.

For example, in Hong Kong the United States worked in common purpose with countries from Zambia to Japan on development initiatives. We worked closely with the Group of 20 developing countries from Latin America, Asia and Africa on agricultural market access and setting a date for ending agricultural export subsidies. We were in common purpose with India and Chile on services and we worked closely with our trading partners in Europe and Korea on reducing industrial tariffs.

Coming out of Hong Kong, the importance of the rules-based multilateral trading system and the peaceful pursuit of expanded commerce were reaffirmed. But now the 150 members of the WTO must join together to make real progress in bridging the fundamental divisions in the Doha negotiations. It will take contributions from all members. Unless this can happen early in this new year, we risk missing a unique opportunity to enhance global economic growth and alleviate poverty.

Not knowing more detail than what you've provided I'd say that, under these circumstances, your company should absolutely exit the industry and allow the larger and more efficient operators to fill the void.

You might want to educate yourself about the industry that you are supposed to be in, before you throw around invectives. Our banker called back today to say that our numbers look "great"...and they do, comparatively. Those numbers are typical, not an anomaly.

The fact is, agriculture today is dominated by large co-op's

What? Where did you come up with that little gem? We are fairly large farmers, in "the" farm state...the land is being farmed by individual farmers.

We've had to do this to remain competitive.

"We" who? We are net exporters of most commodities. "We" have had to do this to be competitive with "whom?" You are assuming a "free" market, which we do not have. The Board of Trade is a ridiculous, outdated notion that serves as nothing but a price-fixing operation. It was useful when my Great-Grandpa traveled to Chicago to sell cattle for 50 or so farmers in our area...in 1910...before the had PHONES. Get rid of the Board of Trade; let us negotiate prices for our products with the buyers of our products...THEN you can get rid of subsidies.

I do have to be a little careful what I say in that regard, however. We have no shortage of greedy politicians and businessmen who would actually be so shortsighted as to trust our food supply to some third-world country. They've done it with oil, and that's really worked out well.

So, you're in the food business.

No, I'm in the "grow your food" business. I've spent years in the building materials manufacturing & distribution business. Every company I've worked for has had a 5% or less net profit margin...all were successful. All were able to sell their products on the open market, for a price which was, amazingly, not manipulated to be lower than production cost.

If food costs had kept up with wages and inflation....and if they were suddenly adjusted tomorrow...people would come unglued. To the extent that they have gone up, it certainly isn't the farmer who is benefiting. Our input costs have soared, our cost of living has soared, and we are being paid 1975 prices. To be sure, we have become more efficient, but cannot begin to offset this:

Some commodity charts from the 1970's through 1999.

http://www.ifbf.org/programs/commodity/pdf/eoa1.pdf#search='corn%20bushel%20price%201975'

I hope that I'll be able to purchase a new vehicle soon at the $5,000 sticker-price that prevailed back then.

"...without the subsidies....there would be virtually NO profit..."

Our family has a number of farms and my mother-in-law makes this same statement. I consider it an admission of fantasy. Reality is that there is no profit. Period. Subsidies are the same as charity. There are some welfare recipients who are clear enough to glory in it, and I find the brazen attitude more honest than for some bum were to say he needs the assistance because without the subsidies "there would be virtually NO profit" in his daytime TV watching.

If these words are harsh then reality is harsh. Most taxpayers are livid at being forced to support someone else's unsustainable lifestyle. We especially hate it when these panhandlers become abusive and start accusing their benefactors of not caring about the underprivileged, or the community welfare, or dependence on foreigners, or whatever. I say people who can work but prefer to live off my taxes should at least say "thank you" and drop the nonsense about who cares more about American self-sufficiency. It seems that if more Americans individually would accept the responsibility of paying their own way, then America as a whole would be in a stronger position to sustain itself.

"If you look at the average income and average net worth of our farmers today you will find that the vast majority of them are doing very well."

Support for this assertion is? Dairy farmers in PA have gone bankrupt in record numbers. Family farmers may have a high net worth, but the return on that investment is abysmal. They are not "doing very well."

"Any products we currently produce, that are lost in the future to foreign competition, could certainly be produced again here in a very short period of time. "

Not if our farmland is put to another purpose. We currently have bgillions of acres devoted to farming....but as farming becomes less profitable, the land will be put to another use....and it may not be able to be recoverted.

Have you ever read a profit and loss statement for a family farm? Ever calculated ROI on a family farm? Every calculated the hourly wage earned from laboring on a family farm? They're all pitiful.

Any word on where this $8 trillion figure is coming from? It's popping up too frequently to be an accident. Is it total federal debt? Consumer?

Slave labor is the goal of most politicians in Washington and almost every businessman and free trader in America. Under trade agreement NAFTA, CAFTA and now the trade agreement with South America (FTTA) America's citizens and sovereignty have been sold to the lowest bidder.

America is running $1.3 trillion in fiscal and trade deficits, and our national debt under Bush has gone to 8 trillion, with Congress approving, it will be raised even more.

Past Treasury O'Neal calculated the US liabilities exceed anticipated income by some $44 trillion. Yet today near my city a bank headquarters has fired 200 people and sent their jobs to India. This is going on all over America because greed has taken over business, and we have lost our minds pursuing that almighty dollar at the loss of our own middle class, who pay the taxes and keep the country free.

Free trade will destroy the countries south of us, and as we have seen when this happens millions of illegal immigrants will come to America to steal what little wealth we have now. But yet our debt continues to grow while the mistakes of the politicians who ratified these free trade agreement are being hidden under a rug of lies and deceit. Once industry, labor and government become buddies we'll see the loss of freedom in America intensify, and America will never be the same again becoming a nation of slaves - with the exception of politicians and businessmen.

Our banker called back today to say that our numbers look "great"...and they do, comparatively. Those numbers are typical, not an anomaly.

If I read your post correctly you said the owners of your company are working 80 hours a week and are earning $20k a year? You then asked me if I would do this. No, I wouldn't. I'd sell my business if I could and move on to other, more rewarding work. But hey, to each his own. If your banker is telling you this kind of performance is good then maybe the company has value and can be sold for a good profit. If your numbers are good then stop whining.

...the land is being farmed by individual farmers.

Yes, sole proprietorships still account for the largest percentage of total farms. Their share of farm product sales is shrinking however. The move to larger farming to achieve economies of scale will continue. The large co-op's will continue to use their welfare to undercut and buy up smaller operations. I am happy to hear that, IYO, the individual farmer is still doing well despite all the claims to the contrary.

"We" have had to do this to be competitive with "whom?"

Foreign imports of agriculture products is not a threat to our domestic producers? Interesting. There are some on this thread claiming that foreign competition is wiping out our farmers.

Get rid of the Board of Trade; let us negotiate prices for our products with the buyers of our products...

Individual farmers negotiating their own deals with processors, distributors and retailers? Sounds very inefficient to me. Is the CBOT making all the money in the food business? Are they the ones responsible for turning $.30 of raw materials into a $3.00 box of cereal and earning obscene profits?

We have no shortage of greedy politicians and businessmen who would actually be so shortsighted as to trust our food supply to some third-world country.

But we are still net exporters of most commodities, right?

If food costs had kept up with wages and inflation....and if they were suddenly adjusted tomorrow...people would come unglued

I don't suppose productivity and competition had anything to do with food prices dropping as a percentage of the American consumers budget?

To the extent that they have gone up, it certainly isn't the farmer who is benefiting.

From my linked article, it says that as of 2001:

household income of $64,347 (17 percent above the national average) and a net worth of over $563,600 (double the national average),

Farms fail at only one-sixth the rate of non-farm businesses, and only 4.5 percent of farms have enough debt to be considered vulnerable to bankruptcy.

You can't tell us on one hand how well farms are doing and then tell us that farmers are not enjoying any benefit from their increased productivity. Clearly they are benefiting when they earn 17% more than the average American, enjoy a lower cost of living and possess twice the net worth. Like all Americans, their incomes and standard of living have increased dramatically since 1975. Things are more expensive now because things are better.

Support for this assertion is?.... Family farmers may have a high net worth, but the return on that investment is abysmal. They are not "doing very well."

From the linked article:

"Today, the average family farm has a household income of $64,347 (17 percent above the national average) and a net worth of over $563,600 (double the national average), which is even more impressive considering that the cost of living in rural areas is 10 percent to 40 percent lower than in urban areas.8 Farms fail at only one-sixth the rate of non-farm businesses, and only 4.5 percent of farms have enough debt to be considered vulnerable to bankruptcy.9 Yet Congress still votes to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to farmers."

If farmers are hurting so badly why are there still more than two million farms in this country?

but as farming becomes less profitable, the land will be put to another use....and it may not be able to be recovered

Nonsense. Not only is farming becoming more profitable it's dong so without taxpayer assistance. Again, from the linked article:

the growers of unsubsidized crops actually have enjoyed faster-rising incomes than subsidized farmers;

The innovation and responsiveness to the market exhibited by unregulated farmers were major factors in the 22 percent increase in farm productivity over the past decade

Land may be put to other uses, but we will continue to produce more food on less land. To think that we will not have enough land, people or equipment to produce additional food, if needed, on short notice, just isn't supported by the facts.

Ever calculated ROI on a family farm? Every calculated the hourly wage earned from laboring on a family farm? They're all pitiful.

Their average annual income is higher than the national average, their cost of living is lower and their net worth is double the national average. If things were as bad as you claim, we would see a rapid decline in the number of family farms. It's not happening.

RE: export subsidies and who gets to say what they are (Hint: it ain't us)

Thank you for the information about exports, trade, and the direct v. indirect tax dispute. Your link and another one I found to help me understand provided me with a clue why a law passed on October 22, 2004 was called

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004

I saw nothing in reports covering the new law about jobs. There was the repeal of "export subsidies" in response to the WTO and the temporary reduction of taxes on repatriated earnings. Actually, the repeal of "export subsidies" (so defined by the WTO) hurts our exports and reduces job opportunities -- and most corporations intended to use their repatriated earnings for everything but jobs. I'm still wondering where Jobs Creation figures in.

One Internet source discussing the direct v. indirect tax dispute and the WTO interference said "If the American people understood this dispute, and the effect on jobs, there would be rioting in the streets."

So we have been conditioned to bow to the WTO regardless of the impact on ourselves. It's just the beginning. I've been reading about a growing demand that the WTO move beyond just trade and get into managing "social justice."

The New Democrat Third Way "progressives" and their Third Way comrades around the world (Including Blair. Blinton?) have only to ask their corporate useful idiots to please make lots of rope, preferably outsourced offshore, thank you.

Our family has a number of farms and my mother-in-law makes this same statement.

As much as it may pain you to admit it, your MIL is correct. There really are no profits without subsidies.

This is purposeful. Rather than having 200 million people howling about "food" costs at the grocery store, our nasty politicians have, for years, subsidized your food costs at the producer end.

End result: you HATE the people who grow your food. Why don't you take a minute to think about that.

Farmers are by nature, independent people. Do you think that we enjoy having to grovel to the Government, filling out all of their ridiculous paperwork....it makes the IRS look like a cakewalk. And then, we have our completely ungrateful and clueless fellow citizens BITCHING that we are "welfare" recipients. Most would last, working on the average farm, about as long as Paris Hilton.

The prices paid for our products are manipulated; we have NO say over it, and are completely unable to pass along the increased costs of production to the buyers of our products. Prices for corn are at 1970 levels. Yields have slightly less than doubled since then; input costs have increased at least tenfold.

Why don't you at least be honest and admit that YOU are willing to sell out our entire food supply to the third world. That's what will happen if this course continues.

Alternatively, you could get rid of the subsides, but NOT until you get rid of the Government-supported cabal of price-fixing in Chicago; otherwise the former is fait accompli.

Any products we currently produce, that are lost in the future to foreign competition, could certainly be produced again here in a very short period of time.

Wow! You read Jack and the Beanstalk one too many times, didn't you?

People starve to death in three weeks; you might get lucky and get some "early" lettuce in that amount of time. Salad for everyone!

Every single product that we produce "can" be outsourced to peasants for a pittance; once you have so obligingly given them all of our agricultural knowledge and equipment (under the guise of stopping world hunger, of course). The Founders of our Country must be rolling over in their graves that we actually have a generation of people stupid enough to actually think that "outsourcing" our food supply is a good idea.

This is all a sham, scam - pick your adjective.

The whole point on this side of the free trade equation is to use free trade as an excuse to market bust. The fact of the matter is that in the worker vs business game of supply and demand, workers in this country had the upper hand and were making gains over the long run. To Bush, Clinton and the globalists, that's bad. Afterall, "what's good for business is good for the economy.." right.. How do you turn workers having the upper hand into being good for business? Do you let the market work? Or do you interfere and undercut the workers in order to give the side out advantage back to business...

Simple and easy to understand. You undermine the US worker while feeding them crap about how good this is for the world economy and world trade.. They weren't elected to worry about a world economy or free trade. They were elected to look out for the best interests of the American people. Instead, they're looking out for the interests of Corporations and the very wealthy and undermining the rest of us to do so.

Welcome - to the world of Shadowrun!

Your post was interesting-- not the part about me of course (I get to have me around all day long), it was the part about what you believe. Help me out because following you was not easy and I prefer to actually understand what you're saying as opposed to just making up your positions like everyone else does around here (plain one-syllable English translation: cut the crap --please).

You're saying that for aid recipients there "really are no profits without subsidies". I can't argue with that; but I'm also getting the notion from you that somehow there really would be profits without the subsidies were it not for "the Government-supported cabal of price-fixing in Chicago". I guess I don't work with the commodities markets as much as you do so maybe you can tell me why it is that our farm in Texas can sell harvests to anyone we want without ever having to mess with the Capone gang?

I was against granting China MFN status. If their government changes in the next 10 years, MFN will have succeeded, if not, it'll have been a mistake.

We can thank Bill Clinton for that. And this is where it has gotten us: From Elaine Kurtenbach - The Associated Press: "China's trade surplus surged to $101.9 billion in 2005, more than triple the $32 billion gap recorded the year before, according to customs figure releasedWednesday".....(not from the stupid Swampfox98, I might add)........"China is now the world's third-biggest trading nation, ...the report said China announced earlier that it had overtaken Japan in terms of merchandise trade and remained behind the United States and Germany"...(but not for long, as America is fast becoming a third world nation, outsourcing our jobs to India, bringing in 20 to 50 million Mexicans to take jobs away from citizens and be put on our Medicaid and welfare system)......"A leading U.S. lawmaker"....not stupid swampfox98..."Sen. Max Baucus, said during a visit to Beijing that he had warned senior Chinese officials that the persisting trade imbalance with the U.S. was bound to draw a backlash"....(but not on Free Republic).

Thanks to Bill Clinton, who gave China the missile guidance system, China can now zot any nation on earth who triffles with her, while America goes down the tubes, our "friend" China sees her star ascending over the world at an astronomical rate.

Caution. "Free traders" at work.

New Democrat Third Way "progressives" and the Democratic Leadership Council hate tariffs.

Tariffs hurt the little people says Edward Gresser Before the Senate Subcommittee on International Trade. Mr. Gresser heads the Trade and Global Markets Project at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington.

What to do what to do?!

WTO to the rescue! "It is thus the WTO's major opportunity to help us both secure specific trade objectives, and serve the large goals highlighted by each president since the 1940s."

"What do we want?!" "End U.S. tariffs!" "When do we want them?" "Now!"

I can hear Bill and Hillary screaming the demands to obey the WTO.

"We don't care 'bout nutin' else," says WTO official. "We just loooooooooooove to help the American people."

New Democrat Third Way "progressives" and the Democratic Leadership Council join WTO condemnation of the Foreign Sales Corporation -- FSC is to blame for Europe's threat to impose tariffs on U.S. goods -- inaction by Repubican Congress at fault. DLC, New Dem Daily, March 4, 2004. "The GOP Fiddles, Manufacturers Burn"

Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas refuses to end tax breaks for the rich, opposes FSC fix demanded by the WTO and European competitors. The elimination of the FSC is "so vital to the already suffering manufacturing sector of our struggling economy, it's time for some presidential leadership," say New Democrat Third Way "progressives" and the Democratic Leadership Council

And what of the FSC? Say the New Democrat Third Way "progressives" and the Democratic Leadership Council, "FSC is one of those arcane tax issues that don't get much attention until policymakers find a way to make them real-life problems. It's a device to give U.S. exporters a tax break to offset the subsidies European competitors get from special exemptions to the continent's pervasive value-added tax (VAT) on goods."

It's arcane. Move along, move along. Trust the WTO.

If the New Democrat Third Way "progressives" and the Democratic Leadership Council know that their European Third Way comrades get the break (by another name) why did they want to eliminate ours? It's gone as of Oct., 2004 -- along with American jobs, many jobs some say.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.