If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   New free trade agreements will benefit at least a dozen people, and some of them will even be American   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 14
    More: Obvious, free trade agreements, patent office, capital controls, trade policies, WTO, generic drugs, national pastime, Pacific Partnership  
•       •       •

1393 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jul 2013 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



14 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-05 01:14:58 PM
Someone must like The Guardian today.
 
2013-07-05 01:15:23 PM
The plutocrats thank you for your complacency.
 
2013-07-05 01:16:36 PM
Is the next greenlight for the Politics Tab going to be classified ads from The Guardian?
 
2013-07-05 01:18:29 PM
The Daily Fail sidebars are infinitely more interesting.
 
2013-07-05 01:30:43 PM
i laughed when i saw this wasnt an Onion article.  too apropos, i guess.
 
2013-07-05 02:14:52 PM
Hey, at least Moron, er Moroun, isn't going to be able to overcharge for that shiatpile bridge in a couple years.

Can't wait for him (and his family) to throw a few more fits. I suspect there's more than a few lawsuits to go yet.
 
2013-07-05 02:18:19 PM

inglixthemad: Hey, at least Moron, er Moroun, isn't going to be able to overcharge for that shiatpile bridge in a couple years.

Can't wait for him (and his family) to throw a few more fits. I suspect there's more than a few lawsuits to go yet.


For the farking life of me I can't understand why so many idiots in that state support efforts to block the new bridge.
 
2013-07-05 03:30:07 PM
FTFA:
The US position was truly breathtaking, given that the WTO had already judged that America's cotton subsidies - paid to fewer than 25,000 rich farmers - were illegal. Washington's response was to bribe Brazil, which had brought the complaint, not to pursue the matter further.

Wow.  Talk about stuff you just don't hear about in the media in this country.
 
2013-07-05 03:35:08 PM
Subsidies hurt everyone except the farmer. Even the taxpayer gets screwed. Agricultural subsidies to red state farmers who complain about socialism are farking criminal - the ultimate in a sense of entitlement.
 
2013-07-05 03:54:19 PM
Well, that was incoherent.   For illustration, take the following two paragraphs:

Given this recent history, it now seems clear that the negotiations to create a free trade area between the US and Europe, and another between the US and much of the Pacific (except for China), are not about establishing a true free trade system. Instead, the goal is a managed trade regime - managed, that is, to serve the special interests that have long dominated trade policy in the west.

Got it, trade needs to be free, not corporate hand outs relabeled as free trade.  But the author wanders around without backing up this point.  Just stating vague fears. And then this happened:

Indeed, the irony is that the social benefits of such subsidies are enormous, while the costs are negligible. Does anyone really believe that a French art film represents a serious threat to a Hollywood summer blockbuster? Yet Hollywood's greed knows no limit, and America's trade negotiators take no prisoners. And that's precisely why such items should be taken off the table before negotiations begin.

OK, 180 degrees anyone?  So, we need a true free trade agreement without exceptions for special interests, and to get that we need to preserve subsidies for the French film industry?  And corporate handouts are bad for the people, but the social benefits of subsidies are enormous?

I half suspect that they had three different authors write three different viewpoints on global trade, and blended them together into a fine mush.
 
2013-07-05 04:56:53 PM

SomeAmerican: OK, 180 degrees anyone? So, we need a true free trade agreement without exceptions for special interests, and to get that we need to preserve subsidies for the French film industry? And corporate handouts are bad for the people, but the social benefits of subsidies are enormous?


I rather think the author was trying to point out that special interests are bad when they dominate trade and funnel subsidies to themselves for their own enrichment, to the detriment of everyone else. Smaller subsidies for smaller, uninfluential special interests, on the other hand, are great for things like the social benefit of preserving culture, yet will do nothing by themselves to distort the market.
The author is saying that subsidies for Hollywood are bad because Hollywood is a huge player, can stand on its own, and is capable of snuffing out competition. Subsidies for French Art films are good because they don't have the same kind of footprint as Hollywood, nor the same ability to compete. Subsidies for art films will not affect Hollywood at all, but they will go a long way to preserving cultural variety.
Or put more simply, do you want McDonald's to be the only burger place around, or do you want to be able to visit Mom & Pop's Burgers to spice things up?
 
2013-07-05 05:30:28 PM
i wrote an essay on free trade and preferential trade agreements while in law school, so, i'm getting a kick. the doha round... heh heh heh.  I'm surpised anyone feels like letting their balls drop and open up trade right now.  although I was guessing 2012 about 3 years ago, if you asked me today, i'd say wait until 2015-2020.  i guess that means our economy is doing better.  or, everyone else's is just a whole lot worse.

now, the next rant is not completely serious or perfectly researched/remembered since the last time i paid attention:

but, why is it that almost every single time the US decides to open up some trade, it is always at the expense of louisiana?

back when the US decided to punish France for some trading troubles, what do they decide to tax the fark out of?  Chicory.  France produces the world's supply of chicory.  over 90% of the chicory entering the US goes to Louisiana.  To punish France, the US taxes only chicory, making it too expensive for people in louisiana to reasonably continue to purchase.  and possibly destroying the chicory business in france, which would leave us forever short on chicory. so long cafe du monde coffee.  (hyperbolic, sorry, you can still get chicory, and people still do, but the price of a chicory coffee will go up, if it hasn't already)

Then there were all the recent subsidies for steel plants.  great, we should make steal... i agree.  but, prior to that subsidy, all the steel coming to the US came through the new orleans port system.  making the state beaucoup dollars.  now, fark louisiana, subsidize inefficient manufacturing somewhere else.  thanks.

then there's asian shrimps.

and now, they want to fark with rice subsidies.  guess which state makes a lot of rice?  yeah, louisiana.

everytime the US gets in to trade talks with anyone, they have predetermined that they're going to sacrifice louisiana's commercial interests first.

it's just goofy.  are the feds still pissed about that whole drinking age debacle?  fark, take it out on south dakota, they held out as long or longer than louisiana.  maybe they're still pissed about allowing civilians in their precious system of commoners.
 
2013-07-05 07:36:29 PM

vygramul: Subsidies hurt everyone except the farmer. Even the taxpayer gets screwed. Agricultural subsidies to red state farmers who complain about socialism are farking criminal - the ultimate in a sense of entitlement.


Maybe, but at a certain point if subsidies are necessary to keep the domestic agriculture industry healthy I think they are essential. I don't want to get to a point where we are overly dependent on importing food.
 
2013-07-05 11:27:50 PM

DrewCurtisJr: vygramul: Subsidies hurt everyone except the farmer. Even the taxpayer gets screwed. Agricultural subsidies to red state farmers who complain about socialism are farking criminal - the ultimate in a sense of entitlement.

Maybe, but at a certain point if subsidies are necessary to keep the domestic agriculture industry healthy I think they are essential. I don't want to get to a point where we are overly dependent on importing food.


There are four countries in the world - maybe five - that, were they do pull an OPEC and do price controls, could fark over the world. The U.S. is one of them. (Ukraine could eventually join, as could China - maybe.)

The U.S. is in exactly ZERO danger of having to import food. The day that happens, you may as well start building the bunker and stocking up, because the apocalypse is farking CLOSE at that point.

/HAVING being the important word here. Yeah, we import beer and lebkuchen.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report