Wto meeting

[Bluesman 0]

There seems to be some unusually tough negotiations this time around. A developing world alliance consisting of China, Brazil, India, South Africa and 16 smaller countries have united against EU and US to pressure them to remove their farming subsidies. USA seems prepared to negotiate while EU is more rigid.

Would be interesting if EU/US could actually follow up their "noble" statements about reducing poverty in the Third World with some action. Adam Smith realised that free trade benefits both parties even if the trade balance is uneven. Wonder if the EU negotiators will catch up with this knowledge.

Anyone think there will be any results from this round?

BM

[brgnorway 0]

There seems to be some unusually tough negotiations this time around. A developing world alliance consisting of China, Brazil, India, South Africa and 16 smaller countries have united against EU and US to pressure them to remove their farming subsidies. USA seems prepared to negotiate while EU is more rigid.

Would be interesting if EU/US could actually follow up their "noble" statements about reducing poverty in the Third World with some action. Adam Smith realised that free trade benefits both parties even if the trade balance is uneven. Wonder if the EU negotiators will catch up with this knowledge.

Anyone think there will be any results from this round?

BM

I guess we can't expect a big push forward in favour of the developing world. There are too many powerful agricultural organisations for that to happen.

Besides, Adam Smith was also responsible for inventing the "invisible hand" - so until anyone figures out what that might be we will still end up with regulations in the rich worlds favour!

[Bluesman 0]

Point is; Something is bound to happen with this quite powerful alliance. Otherwise the entire WTO project is at jeopardy.

Btw since I read it in a Swedish paper it would be nice to show an English language equivalent. This article roughly tells the tale I meant to discuss;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24790-2003Sep4.html

I have a suggestion. Bush needs 75 billion $ for the war effort in Iraq. He could use those 180 billion$ farm subsidies and get some cash over .

[brgnorway 0]

Point is; Something is bound to happen with this quite powerful alliance. Otherwise the entire WTO project is at jeopardy.

Btw since I read it in a Swedish paper it would be nice to show an English language equivalent. This article roughly tells the tale I meant to discuss;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24790-2003Sep4.html

I have a suggestion. Bush needs 75 billion $ for the war effort in Iraq. He could use those 180 billion$ farm subsidies and get some cash over .

Well, if anything actually did happen that would be nice.

By the way, I've always thought about what would happen to our wealthy societies if the developing countries took control over their resources - like the middle eastern nations did with the oil? Just think about all the natural resources on the african continent being stolen by us!

[ozanzac 0]

There seems to be some unusually tough negotiations this time around. A developing world alliance consisting of China, Brazil, India, South Africa and 16 smaller countries have united against EU and US to pressure them to remove their farming subsidies. USA seems prepared to negotiate while EU is more rigid.

Would be interesting if EU/US could actually follow up their "noble" statements about reducing poverty in the Third World with some action. Adam Smith realised that free trade benefits both parties even if the trade balance is uneven. Wonder if the EU negotiators will catch up with this knowledge.

Anyone think there will be any results from this round?

BM

Well I say good on them for taking the issue up in a combined effort. For too long, US and EU farmers have been insulated by governmental breaks, making it impossible for farmers from nations other than the US and EU to be competitive in the international market.

[denoir 0]

Very interesting. It seems to be quite a shocker. Basically the third world has ganged up on the EU and USA accusing them of undermining the agricultural efforts in the third world.

It would seem like nobody expected this because both the EU and the American representatives seemed noticably shaken and they've become extremely defensive. EU is trying to justify it with some very questionable and not very convincing statistics while USA lashed out against the third world countries saying that it's their own fault because of their restrictive import/export laws.

Quite an interesting development. Usually WTO meetings are completely dominated by the rich industrial nations (i.e USA and EU). Not this time it would seem.

[Necromancer- 0]

Quite an interesting development. Usually WTO meetings are completely dominated by the rich industrial nations (i.e USA and EU). Not this time it would seem.

Good..

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I see it a quite positive development, especially if this kick up the arse will help the EU to finally get around to making real changes to the far too costly and unjustifiable agricultural subsidies (especially to unproductive French farmers).

I wont be too happy to say i live in the EU whilst this unjustifiable state of affairs continues. Roll on free trade.

[Koolkid101 0]

Free Trade bad..... Makes VT farmers poorer......

[denoir 0]

I see it a quite positive development, especially if this kick up the arse will help the EU to finally get around to making real changes to the far too costly and unjustifiable agricultural subsidies (especially to unproductive French farmers).

I wont be too happy to say i live in the EU whilst this unjustifiable state of affairs continues. Roll on free trade.

I agree, it's time to face reality. People are still paranoid about famine and therefore like a strong national agriculture at any cost, but face it - it's not very realistic today.

Let the free market rule. And this goes both for the EU and USA. Ok, so the American and European farmers won't be too thrilled, but I don't see any real point of keeping them on very expensive life support when the need for their services is limited.

One should however take into consideration of why such a messed up agricultural policy was accepted for the EU. Without it neither France, Germany, nor Britain would have joined. It was a compromise - a bad one - and that's something most agree on. For several years they've been working on something better to replace it and I hope that this WTO meeting will give them a reason to speed up the process.

With the risk of repeating myself: free open markets are the solution

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let the free market rule. And this goes both for the EU and USA. Ok, so the American and European farmers won't be too thrilled, but I don't see any real point of keeping them on very expensive life support when the need for their services is limited.

I largely agree - but this will inflict serious damage on norwegian farmers and what's worse the settlements in the norwegian districts. Our problem is that our farmers are very marginalised because of our topology, climate and geography. Each farmer only occupies small amounts of land and can't deliver competitively priced products because of that. In addition, the districts of Norway are threatened by the younger population moving to central areas.

[brgnorway 0]

World trade talks collapse!

Next meeting to be held in desember.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

By the way, I've always thought about what would happen to our wealthy societies if the developing countries took control over their resources - like the middle eastern nations did with the oil? Just think about all the natural resources on the african continent being stolen by us!

Nothing would happen to our societies, but theirs would take a big dent in population and level of development.

If they indeed take over their own resources, then the developed world has enough reserves to go over their and "liberate" them for our use. This move would be quite unhealthy for them, as the Iraqis had to learn in the past few months.

The current arrangement, whilst still raping the Africans financially, is infinitely better than what would happen if they were to take control of their resources. Can you imagine how ruthless the US/EU would be if it came down to that?

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nothing would happen to our societies, but theirs would take a big dent in population and level of development.

Of course "something" would happen to our societies - we largely rely on cheap unrefined products and raw materials.

It would be an enourmous crisis - and there's no way you could "liberate" a whole continent. However, the idea is totally unrealistic as they can't settle their differences (and we also make sure they don't) .

Quote[/b] ]If they indeed take over their own resources, then the developed world has enough reserves to go over their and "liberate" them for our use. This move would be quite unhealthy for them, as the Iraqis had to learn in the past few months.

As I said - it can't be done. Just think about what the Iraq campaign costs the taxpayers of USA - and yet they can't cope with the resistance.

Quote[/b] ]The current arrangement, whilst still raping the Africans financially, is infinitely better than what would happen if they were to take control of their resources. Can you imagine how ruthless the US/EU would be if it came down to that?

It can't get much worse than it is now - the post-colonial period is marked by more resources going out of africa for a lesser amount of money coming in - compared to the colonial period. We are practically raping a whole continent.

[Bluesman 0]

No need for alarm, they will continue the talks later this year. It's just good that EU and US were sent home thinking a bit on this issue. Clearly a new strategy has to be drawn out.

BM

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nothing would happen to our societies, but theirs would take a big dent in population and level of development.

Of course "something" would happen to our societies - we largely rely on cheap unrefined products and raw materials.

It would be an enourmous crisis - and there's no way you could "liberate" a whole continent. However, the idea is totally unrealistic as they can't settle their differences (and we also make sure they don't) .

Quote[/b] ]If they indeed take over their own resources, then the developed world has enough reserves to go over their and "liberate" them for our use. This move would be quite unhealthy for them, as the Iraqis had to learn in the past few months.

As I said - it can't be done. Just think about what the Iraq campaign costs the taxpayers of USA - and yet they can't cope with the resistance.

Quote[/b] ]The current arrangement, whilst still raping the Africans financially, is infinitely better than what would happen if they were to take control of their resources. Can you imagine how ruthless the US/EU would be if it came down to that?

It can't get much worse than it is now - the post-colonial period is marked by more resources going out of africa for a lesser amount of money coming in - compared to the colonial period. We are practically raping a whole continent.

The US is having trouble in Iraq because, despite the appearance, they are still trying to follow the Geneva convention and try to look like liberators and not occupiers. Notice how there are no "de-Husseinifications" going on.

In any case, if the resources denied to the US/EU were of critical importance, then I believe the US/EU would overlook some paragraphs in the Geneva Convention. If the crisis was bad enough, then I believe that the war against the African nations would be fought on similar levels to the war in Vietnam - Napalm-carpet bombing, complete destruction of civilian infrastructure, etc. It may sound terrible, but preventing civilian losses will not be an issue, or a lesser issue, once the existence of a developed nation is at stake.

However, I wasn't assuming about the entire continent of Africa moving against the developed world, that is completely unrealistic. I thought you meant single nations, or a handful of nations at the most, going against the developed world and claiming their resources for their own use. In any case, the more severe the shortage of resources seems to be, the more severe the military response will be.

[Bluesman 0]

I think there's more to following Conventions than that (a tad too cynical analysis imho). Of course politicians are concerned with their image since they are elected. Doing like in Vietnam today would surelly fire of a public outcry that would drop any politician from their elected office at next election. I think US policy makers (and EU of course) are more aware of this than people believe. A bad image hits trade and what is bad for trade is bad for economics - and what is bad for economics is usually the beginning of the end for any politician.

It's different for a dictator, they can do as they please without having to worry about next elections. Luckily they are getting fewer and fewer by the years.

BM

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I think there's more to following Conventions than that (a tad too cynical analysis imho). Of course politicians are concerned with their image since they are elected. Doing like in Vietnam today would surelly fire of a public outcry that would drop any politician from their elected office at next election. I think US policy makers (and EU of course) are more aware of this than people believe. A bad image hits trade and what is bad for trade is bad for economics - and what is bad for economics is usually the beginning of the end for any politician.

It's different for a dictator, they can do as they please without having to worry about next elections. Luckily they are getting fewer and fewer by the years.

BM

Quote[/b] ]I think there's more to following Conventions than that (a tad too cynical analysis imho).

I'm having a bad day at work and am frustrated, that may make me appear more cynical than I usually am

Quote[/b] ]Of course politicians are concerned with their image since they are elected. Doing like in Vietnam today would surelly fire of a public outcry that would drop any politician from their elected office at next election. I think US policy makers (and EU of course) are more aware of this than people believe. A bad image hits trade and what is bad for trade is bad for economics - and what is bad for economics is usually the beginning of the end for any politician.

Whilst it is true that politicians are controlled by their voters, it can also go the other way with the politicians/policy makers controlling their voters. Propaganda, if used correctly (wrongly, from the correct point of view), can actually make the people want these sort of measures. In a way, it has already worked on Iraq and Afghanistan, with some remarks from US citizens coming close to being vomit-inducingly fascist. Especially in a media society as ours, the threat of propaganda influencing the people is stronger than ever, with rubbish papers as the Sun and Bild reaching more people than traditional moderate ones. I may be cynical again, but certainly from the communications media point of view, propaganda is easier than ever.