Mexico Revokes Antidumping Duties on U.S. Long Grain White Rice

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ^ | 14. September 2006 | press release

[1rudeboy]

"Changes?" As in making it easier for us to export rice?

[outdriving]

"I suppose you get the nickel, albeit you get it in an oblique fashion. Are you suggesting that U.S. trade policy necessarily needs to take into account Mexican subsistence farmers? A jobs program for Mexicans, if you will?"

I Think Mexican trade policy needs to take into account Mexican farmers. And I also think that U.S. policy, in general, should favor U.S. citizens, in general.

This is the problem with the WTO and "free trade" agreements in general in regards to sovereignty. An unelected bureaucratic arbitration board (WTO) is given the power to force nation "A" to act against the best interests of it's citizens in favor of nation "B".

That is what happened here. The U.S. went to the WTO and cried "Mexico isn't playing fair!". "Here's the rules as interpreted by our lawyers". Mexico said "We determined according to our rules, the U.S. was dumping this rice into our market!" "This is the proof our lawyers came up with for Mexico".

The WTO said "The U.S. lawyers win." "Mexico has not proven dumping to our satisfaction". "Mexico, drop your tariffs and restrictions, or else!".

The Mexicans said "Yes massa, we be doing your bidding".

Let's summarize for the class:

National sovereignty = "Screw you, WTO, I care about my countrymen first!"

Free trade dhimmitude = "Of course Mr. WTO, sir, if my poor stoop farmers can't compete ADM factory farms, that's not your "stakeholder's" problem.

[1rudeboy]

I Think Mexican trade policy needs to take into account Mexican farmers. And I also think that U.S. policy, in general, should favor U.S. citizens, in general.

But that's not what you're saying at all. You suggest that U.S. trade policy needs to take into account Mexican farmers.

[outdriving]

George HW Bush once said he "had a problem with that vision thing".

So don't feel too bad about your inability to see the big picture here. He rose to be President.

Frankly, when you do not show the common courtesy to reread my posts when I tell you that you're putting words in my mouth, why should I waste my time drawing you a picture?

Everyone else seems to understand my posts.

[1rudeboy]

Frankly, when you do not show the common courtesy to reread my posts when I tell you that you're putting words in my mouth, why should I waste my time drawing you a picture?

Frankly, in the time it took you to compose your reply, you could've pointed-out my error. Our comments remain on the record.

[Dog Gone]

Wait, I thought I heard here that the US lost every WTO dispute.

[1rudeboy]

This is an unintended consequence of "free trade" -- it's not a win-win market. The real big downside is it means that Mexican who didn't own much -- but were owners of something, so had middle-class values -- have to become workers. A good number of whom will consider working in the U.S.
13 posted on 09/17/2006 3:46:37 PM CDT by rpgdfmx

[1rudeboy]

[hedgetrimmer]

Let's summarize for the class:

National sovereignty = "Screw you, WTO, I care about my countrymen first!"

Free trade dhimmitude = "Of course Mr. WTO, sir, if my poor stoop farmers can't compete ADM factory farms, that's not your "stakeholder's" problem.

Nicely put.

[chuckles]

I was hoping we would make ethanol out of it and they could compete with the new price. There are many countries that won't accept the rice even as a gift because some is "Franken" rice. I believe the Sudan recently said "no thanks", to 30k tons, as a gift.

[1rudeboy]

I couldn't resist posting the following:

United States and Mexico Reach Agreement on Tequila

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everyone else seems to understand my posts.

That's funny!

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll drink to that!

[Mase]

Excellent news! Bulk tequila and our sovereignty have both been saved.

Was a protectionist arguing that we should develop a domestic tequila industry for national security reasons?

[rpgdfmx]

You suggest that U.S. trade policy needs to take into account Mexican farmers.

Not really... just that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If U.S. farmers are exporting a crop in which Mexico has been relatively self-sufficient, then Mexican farmers are going to emigrate. This means losing customers for OTHER U.S. products, as business activity surrounding the Mexican rice trade will also decline.

The U.S. really does not have any independent farmers (not in any significant numbers... I know some people manage to hold on) and what we subsidize are mega-corporations -- which are often not American companies anyway. But, that's our choice... or, we let the "wise heads" make that choice for us.