“. . . and if [trade agreements were] just ’I will charge you 0% if you charge me 0%’ is as ‘fair’ as one can get, then why did they need 3,000 pages for the damn thing?”I really need to introduce you to the doctrine of "estoppel."
Paul Ross, yesterday (on this thread).“These are issues of imperfection in the trade, i.e., ‘non-freedom’ in the trade that need to be addressed.”
Paul Ross, today (on this thread).
Poor Paul. Logic and consistency were never his strong points.
Perfectly familiar with it. The notion that there are issues needing to be addressed, simply means that we need an honorable party on the other side...and we wait until we get it. No honor on their side...no deal.
No amount of paper will suddenly transform an "agreement" with a dishonorable rat into a squeaky-clean one. The Reagan requirement of "Trust, but Verify" would be the place to start in establishing some degree of trust. Say we simply require "Automatic" retributions...to more or less correct...and swiftly...the "imperfections" (i.e., cheating) as discovered by our USTR. If these were put in place first, likely in a single page, and the other side agreed to it, we would have seen a step in the right direction as to establishing the "honor" on the other side.
China, for one, would never agree to a contract which had such a simple, and inarguable set of clauses.