As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Deleted

Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
edited May 2021 in Debate and/or Discourse
-

Andrew_Jay on

Posts

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Good job by the developing countries. The key here is that they won't let the big boys fuck them in the ass anymore until they get what they want.

    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.

    geckahn on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I will wait until my favorite talking heads weigh in on this one!

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    They collapsed a year ago and were just sort of going through the motions until now. But, yeah, there isn't going to be much progress with the WTO anymore since all that's left are the sacred cows of...well, cows and agriculture. Farm subsidies aren't gong anywhere, sadly, so any trade talks that requires that are doomed to failure.

    moniker on
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Good job by the developing countries. The key here is that they won't let the big boys fuck them in the ass anymore until they get what they want.

    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.

    Pssh. I wouldn't go as far to to congratulate anyone for the talks being a failure (thus far). This is one of those situations where everyone is losing (except for the agribusinesses in the United States and Europe). And they really were a failure when George W. Bush lost his trade authority last year.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Good job by the developing countries. The key here is that they won't let the big boys fuck them in the ass anymore until they get what they want.

    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.

    Heh. I find your statement and avatar to be in conflict.

    Seriously, I think the WTO is going to find itself having a harder time now that the World Bank and IMF aren't as powerful as they used to be.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Good job by the developing countries. The key here is that they won't let the big boys fuck them in the ass anymore until they get what they want.

    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.

    Heh. I find your statement and avatar to be in conflict.

    Seriously, I think the WTO is going to find itself having a harder time now that the World Bank and IMF aren't as powerful as they used to be.

    Friedman wouldn't exactly be in favour of farm subsidies...

    moniker on
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Good job by the developing countries. The key here is that they won't let the big boys fuck them in the ass anymore until they get what they want.

    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.

    I agree with the sentiment. I was always very pro free trade untli the George Soros' of the world started messing with entire economies.

    I read something once that apty described the past situation (I think its improved somewhat). We used to push countries specifically, to open their financial markets and allow their currency to float. This seems like a good idea in general, but in practice it often led to countries having their financial markets and currency collapse. The thing is, the economies in many countries (especially some African countries) is just incredibly small compared to the US.

    I was reading that some country (Botswana I wanna say) had a GDP roughly equal to a middle class town of 30,000 people in the US. So when forced to open up their markets to global influence they were like a plastic toy boat in an ocean.

    Cauld on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Good job by the developing countries. The key here is that they won't let the big boys fuck them in the ass anymore until they get what they want.

    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.

    Heh. I find your statement and avatar to be in conflict.

    Seriously, I think the WTO is going to find itself having a harder time now that the World Bank and IMF aren't as powerful as they used to be.

    How are they in conflict?

    Friedman would be all for total free trade. The EU and US don't want free trade, they want trade that best benefits them.

    geckahn on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    -

    Andrew_Jay on
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.
    The big problem is that a bunch of poor countries trading with each other, while beneficial to a degree, doesn't offer the huge opportunities that selling in the U.S. or EU market does. Plus, such an arrangement outside of the WTO would lack the stability and governance that it brings.

    Agreed. Plus, generally, the really poor countries want to export agricultural products, which there isn't a big demand for in other poor countries.

    Cauld on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Cauld wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.
    The big problem is that a bunch of poor countries trading with each other, while beneficial to a degree, doesn't offer the huge opportunities that selling in the U.S. or EU market does. Plus, such an arrangement outside of the WTO would lack the stability and governance that it brings.

    Agreed. Plus, generally, the really poor countries want to export agricultural products, which there isn't a big demand for in other poor countries.

    Actually they want to have competitive prices within their own markets and/or equivalent ones. Cotton farmers in India have a high suicide rate thanks to the amount of debt they go into trying to compete with the south.

    moniker on
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Cauld wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.
    The big problem is that a bunch of poor countries trading with each other, while beneficial to a degree, doesn't offer the huge opportunities that selling in the U.S. or EU market does. Plus, such an arrangement outside of the WTO would lack the stability and governance that it brings.

    Agreed. Plus, generally, the really poor countries want to export agricultural products, which there isn't a big demand for in other poor countries.

    Actually they want to have competitive prices within their own markets and/or equivalent ones. Cotton farmers in India have a high suicide rate thanks to the amount of debt they go into trying to compete with the south.

    You misunderstand me. I was responding to small countries getting free trade agreements with eachother. I understand and support their desire to be able to sell their products to larger economies, like ours.

    Cauld on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.
    The big problem is that a bunch of poor countries trading with each other, while beneficial to a degree, doesn't offer the huge opportunities that selling in the U.S. or EU market does. Plus, such an arrangement outside of the WTO would lack the stability and governance that it brings.
    But that's not the immediate issue here. The issue is that they cannot even sell their crops in their own markets, let alone ours, because of the subsidies that the US and EU provide. They get completely fucked.

    I think that they'd be quite happy tariffing the shit out of our crops while being able to actually sell their stuff in their own countries and in other developing countries, tariff free.

    geckahn on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    -

    Andrew_Jay on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.
    The big problem is that a bunch of poor countries trading with each other, while beneficial to a degree, doesn't offer the huge opportunities that selling in the U.S. or EU market does. Plus, such an arrangement outside of the WTO would lack the stability and governance that it brings.
    But that's not the immediate issue here. The issue is that they cannot even sell their crops in their own markets, let alone ours, because of the subsidies that the US and EU provide. They get completely fucked.

    I think that they'd be quite happy tariffing the shit out of our crops while being able to actually sell their stuff in their own countries and in other developing countries, tariff free.
    Yes, under your suggestion ("free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops") they will finally have a market even in their own countries as the cheap stuff is no longer dumped on them - but the problems I mentioned will still be there. It will be a better situation (less dumping and a real domestic) but still not ideal (unable to sell their produce in wealthier markets).

    No, but it would give them a stronger case at the negotiating table to demand a reduction in farm subsidies in the US and EU.

    moniker on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    NPR has a great mini series about China's role in developing several African nations.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93081721

    Here's the third part of it, aired this morning.

    Sheep on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Good job by the developing countries. The key here is that they won't let the big boys fuck them in the ass anymore until they get what they want.

    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.

    That would make the price of food in their countries skyrocket. Their farmers might like it - as industries always like government protection whether it comes in the form of subsidies, tariffs, or quotas - but their general populace would get screwed. You gotta understand most of these countries are poor; people can't afford even small increases in price without having their survival threatened. And the tariff would cause more than just a small increase, especially at the levels you seem to be recommending.

    As a matter of principle, unless your country is the price-setter for a good on international markets, government protection of that good is going to cause far more harm than good to that country, even if it improves the industry in question. In macroeconomic terms, the damage to consumers is significantly higher than the benefit to the industries.

    Furthermore, our goal should be to reduce and eliminate trade protection across the board. Setting up tariffs usually draws retaliation from the competing country and results in trade wars, which reduce everyone's standard of living.

    ege02 on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think they should just go all free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops.
    The big problem is that a bunch of poor countries trading with each other, while beneficial to a degree, doesn't offer the huge opportunities that selling in the U.S. or EU market does. Plus, such an arrangement outside of the WTO would lack the stability and governance that it brings.
    But that's not the immediate issue here. The issue is that they cannot even sell their crops in their own markets, let alone ours, because of the subsidies that the US and EU provide. They get completely fucked.

    I think that they'd be quite happy tariffing the shit out of our crops while being able to actually sell their stuff in their own countries and in other developing countries, tariff free.
    Yes, under your suggestion ("free trade with each other, and tariff the US and EU crops") they will finally have a market even in their own countries as the cheap stuff is no longer dumped on them - but the problems I mentioned will still be there. It will be a better situation (less dumping and a real domestic) but still not ideal (unable to sell their produce in wealthier markets).

    No, but it would give them a stronger case at the negotiating table to demand a reduction in farm subsidies in the US and EU.

    Exactly. Absent the US suddenly giving up subsidies (haha), this is the only viable near term strategy I can see for making real free trade happen.
    That would make the price of food in their countries skyrocket. Their farmers might like it - as industries always like government protection whether it comes in the form of subsidies, tariffs, or quotas - but their general populace would get screwed. You gotta understand most of these countries are poor; people can't afford even small increases in price without having their survival threatened. And the tariff would cause more than just a small increase, especially at the levels you seem to be recommending.

    . . . .

    Furthermore, our goal should be to reduce and eliminate trade protection across the board. Setting up tariffs usually draws retaliation from the competing country and results in trade wars, which reduce everyone's standard of living.

    Two points. One, you need to understand that in many/most of these countries, agriculture is the backbone of their economy. When that industry is being systematically destroyed by unfair foreign competition (i.e. dumping via subsidies) it's going to have very real effects on the well being of that economy of that country as a whole. Their infrastructure is being demolished.

    second, "our goal" is not the goal of the USA. They're interested in getting the most favorable rules possible, and they won't give up crop subsidies until they've been forced to. The only way I can see this happening is with developing countries teaming up against the the US and EU. Which is exactly what I reccomend. And then use that bargaining power to force real free trade. This is what they're trying to do. With Brazil leading the pack.

    geckahn on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Two points. One, you need to understand that in many/most of these countries, agriculture is the backbone of their economy. When that industry is being systematically destroyed by unfair foreign competition (i.e. dumping via subsidies) it's going to have very real effects on the well being of that economy of that country as a whole. Their infrastructure is being demolished.

    It's a "damned if you put tariffs, damned if you don't" sort of situation. What I am trying to tell you is that you'd be more damned if you did, than you would be if you didn't.

    The reason is that tariffs would hurt the country in the short-run. The moment they implement tariffs, the price of their food is going to skyrocket. Whereas they aren't going to realize the benefits of industry protection for years, maybe decades, because industries - especially agriculture - take a long time to develop. What are they going to do until then? You gotta realize most of these countries are poor as hell; they don't have the extra wealth to absorb the blow of an increase in the price of essential goods. If the price of food increases a lot of people would starve to death.

    Furthermore, tariffs and subsidies by their very nature cause deadweight losses. The US is a wealthy country so they can afford the DWL; the others can't.
    second, "our goal" is not the goal of the USA. They're interested in getting the most favorable rules possible, and they won't give up crop subsidies until they've been forced to. The only way I can see this happening is with developing countries teaming up against the the US and EU. Which is exactly what I reccomend. And then use that bargaining power to force real free trade. This is what they're trying to do. With Brazil leading the pack.

    Yes, they'd have more bargaining power. Just not nearly enough to tip the scales.

    The only solution to this situation is for the US and EU to come around and reduce their subsidies. Sad and hopeless, but true. Answering subsidies with tariffs is just going to make them increase their subsidies in retaliation. We don't want trade wars here.

    ege02 on
Sign In or Register to comment.