Posted on 01/10/2006 7:43:06 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
WTO committed to ending agricultural subsidies, other trade barriers
Keeping Doha Alive
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.
How do you feel about 15% of the annual US budget being spent on income security (farm price supports)? The DOHA proposal calls for a cut of 60% in price supports to US farmers. How much money will that save the taxpayers? How much government interference in the economy will be eliminated then? If investing $2.7 Billion could save you $50 billion would you be in favor? Or, is welfare ok as long as it goes to Americans?
You're being generous. Most fifth graders can google foreign+holdings+US+debt to learn the truth. Most fifth graders can also tell the difference between $250 billion and $8 trillion.
Another tagline.
Good one (your tagline).
Are you sure you've quoted him correctly? Let's look at the actual letter to James Madison to find out:
I presume that, having spared to the pride of England her formal acknowledgment of the atrocity of impressment in an article of the treaty, she will concur in a convention for relinquishing it. Without this, she must understand that the present is but a truce, determinable on the first act of impressment of an American citizen, committed by any officer of hers. Would it not be better that this convention should be a separate act, unconnected with any treaty of commerce, and made an indispensable preliminary to all other treaty? If blended with a treaty of commerce she will make it the price of injurious concessions. Indeed, we are infinitely better without such treaties with any nation. We cannot too distinctly detach ourselves from the European system, which is essentially belligerent, nor too sedulously cultivate an American system, essentially pacific. But if we go into commercial treaties at all, they should be with all, at the same time, with whom we have important commercial relations. France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, all should proceed pari passu. Our ministers marching in phalanx on the same line, and intercommunicating freely, each will be supported by the weight of the whole mass, and the facility with which the other nations will agree to equal terms of intercourse, will discountenance the selfish higglings of England, or justify our rejection of them. Perhaps, with all of them, it would be best to have but the single article gentis amicissimæ, leaving everything else to the usages and courtesies of civilized nations. But all these things will occur to yourself, with their counter-consideration."
Let's look at some unadulterated quotes from Jefferson on commerce:
Our interest [is] to throw open the doors of commerce and to knock off all its shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the vent of whatever they may choose to bring into our ports, and asking the same in theirs.
The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right, and [only through a] law of their own [can it be] taken away or abridged.
An exchange of surpluses and wants between neighbor nations is both a right and a duty under the moral law.
Nature . . . has conveniently assorted our wants and our superfluities, to each other. Each nation has exactly to spare, the articles which the other wants. . . . The governments have nothing to do, but not to hinder their merchants from making the exchange.
I think all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty.
It [is] for our interest, as for that also of all the world, that every port of France, and of every other country, should be free.
I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.
Farm subsidies are a price control on your food at the grocery store; that's all they've ever been.
It works very well for the politicians: they can reward their big campaign contributors by artifically lowering the price of raw product; keep the price of food low; and have the completely obtuse population blaming the people who actually grow their food for "stealing" their money.
One the other hand, we could rely on other countries for our food...that's worked out so well for us with oil.
Job loss to illegals, outsourcing of millions of jobs to third world countries, a social program for the world paid for by the American taxpayer - who no longer has the money, has sent America into a massive debt that can't ever be paid. However, that doesn't stop our enemies from buying up those debts and holding them over our heads at an opportune time for them. Yes, you are so cute and so funny! Go ahead and smirk while those of us who care about the future of America provide you with your daily sick laugh for the day.
I have a suggestion: I move that Free Republic can outsourse you and your smartass remarks to some third world pest hole were you can use your "superior intelligence" to entertain the rat poop around you. That's what you deserve because you laugh and smirk and preen yourself while your country is going down the tubes from the policies of George Bush.
Millions of jobs outsourced? I don't suppose you have any backup you could link to? And FYI, household net worth is at an all time high, $51 trillion.
Federal Reserve, page 110 of 124
However, that doesn't stop our enemies from buying up those debts and holding them over our heads at an opportune time for them.
Yes, it's terrible that China has about $247 billion of our debt. Not quite the $8 trillion you claimed.
Go ahead and smirk while those of us who care about the future of America provide you with your daily sick laugh for the day.
Right, only the mathematically challenged, pessimistic protectionists care about America. LOL!
I have a suggestion: I move that Free Republic can outsourse you and your smartass remarks to some third world pest hole were you can use your "superior intelligence" to entertain the rat poop around you.
Wow, you're "smart" and "funny". LOL!
That's what you deserve because you laugh and smirk and preen yourself while your country is going down the tubes from the policies of George Bush.
Run Pat run?
On FR, I've seen it said that everything Wal-Mart purchases is made in China. I've also heard it said that imminently, our financial system is going to collapse and that Americans will be killing each other trying to get what little food remains in our grocery stores. And, now on this very thread, I've heard that the US owes China $8 trillion.
I most certainly wouldn't consider FR an infallible source of information especially when it comes from protectionists who have a long history of taking license with the facts to promote their own agenda.
..are you sure that Jefferson did not use similar but somehow different phrases in different statements or letters? The same people tend to repeat themselves with some variations.
That Jefferson quote was made to James Madison in a letter sent in 1815. If you'd like to see the letter, in its entirety, I'd be happy to link you to it. If you can find another correspondence where he said, verbatim, what's in your new tagline, I'd like to see it because it would contradict everything he believed in his entire life.
You might be right. I am replacing my tagline.
If I alter enough of his quotes, I can make Marx sound like an Ayn Rand capitalist. Although, some here already seem to believe it to be so.
Our colleague from the UK does not enjoy being labeled a "socialist" without his knowledge, and having his objection to the same dismissed in such a childish fashion. From my dealings with his in the past, I surmise that is not likely that he will be polite to hedgetrimmer again. If either of you are curious about the thread where it happened, simply let me know and I'll direct you in its direction.
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?
Farm subsidies dramatically increase taxes and the cost of food for American consumers.
The Heritage Foundation on the 2001 Farm Security Act:
The Cost of America's Farm Subsidy Binge
It works very well for the politicians: they can reward their big campaign contributors by artifically lowering the price of raw product; keep the price of food low
If we eliminated price supports and tariffs, the resulting competition would reduce the cost of food for American consumers. Price supports keep farmers profits high. They do not keep prices low.
From the same article:
In truth, food prices and supplies do not require government stabilization any more than industries such as technology, energy, and telecommunications do."
..and have the completely obtuse population blaming the people who actually grow their food for "stealing" their money.
The obtuse population is made up of people who don't understand that 80% of all price supports go to the large farming cooperatives who would remain very profitable without the welfare.
One the other hand, we could rely on other countries for our food.
You really don't understand the issue, do you? We produce more food than at any other time in our history, with fewer people and on less land. By eliminating price supports, the American farmer will concentrate more on the products we can produce most efficiently; unlike growing sugar beets to produce sugar which, by the way, is the most inefficient method for producing sucrose.
If it ain't broke don't fix it! US produces a lot of food which is relatively cheap and good. Free market experiments might be costly and impossible to undo.
That's right. If we eliminate sugar subsidies and quotas, US consumers will save $2.5 billion every year. The sugar lobby could find the savings impossible to undo.
You do not know the future.
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.