The WTO now has the U. S. under sanctions!! And Kerry says...?

[revcarol]

The WTO now has all U. S. made products exported out under sanctions.This happened last Monday.(At present only 100 products are on the sanction-list.) FIVE PERCENT SANCTION MONEY will be charged on every product on the list, including agricultural products!!

Why? Because the U. S. had the AUDACITY to give companies who wanted to export goods an export subsidy.(The Europeans get around this with their value-added tax on finished goods.)

So where does Kerry stand? He's for the WTO.

Right now the Congress is trying to figure out how to help businesses without violating "THE RULES," the rules set by corporations to increase their profits, and enforced in secret tribunals by people hand-picked by the corporations.

Time we got out of the WTO, a la Kucinich, and went back to BI-LATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS!!

[Kagemusha]

1. If the US wasn't so busy trying to make everyone else play ball,

its own cheating would not be much of an issue.

[Terry_M]

2. If the EU is cheating

The US is free to file a complaint in the WTO courts... As for the US, it is breaking the rules...

[revcarol]

3. Their rules are against our national policy of supporting exports.

But the WTO can overrule us.

The same way it can overrule a nation that wants to protect its environment.
The same way it can overrule a nation that wants fairness for its workers.

Oh, but that's THEM. Multi-nationals should be able to have the rules work against THEM.

[orwell]

4. No Subs

I don't think we should be subsidizing exports so I have no problem with this.

O

[Armstead]

5. I have a big problem with not being able to decide our policies

Tje WTO is becoming a world govertnment based on business interests. But pre-empting the ability of nations to determine their own policies they are undermining the whole concept of civil government.

[Terry_M]

6. WIthout the WTO

The EU would be even more free to adjust for our subsidy policies by taxing our products by an equal amount. At least with the WTO, it took time for them to be allowed to do this, and a maximum amount has been set for their tariffs.

[orwell]

19. Silent Screams

Your point is valid. The problem with these global trade organizations isn't so much the fact that they exist, but who is setting the rules. There needs to be far more voices at the table, including voices such as sweatshop labor. Who speaks in the name of global environmental concerns? Water and air pollution, global warming issues have no national borders.

I think the fight should not be over the inevitable reality of growing global trade but over trade agreements that represent the best interests of all concerned.

O

[papau]

7. WTO is the Court/Police of trade - by agreement - and we need to change

the agreement.

Now Kerry is for changing the agreement - but HAS NOT spoken out with specifics or passion on this - mostly likely because the topic flies over the head of 99.9% of the voters.

But the only solution is to get rid of the rule in the WTO that says living wage and environmental and worker safety is not a basis for assigning tariffs to a country.

And if this was a problem of "fairness" rather than lost jobs and quality of life, our corporations could get a value added tax passed in 30 days, with a corresponding drop in the Corporate FIT. Problem is that it is near impossible to cheat on a value added tax, and our 30 some percentage corporate income tax is currently yielding More like 10% - via non-enforcement of IRS Code Section 482, and Wall Street move the money pretend paper transactions.


And Kerry really should develop a position on these things at a Macro level.


But for now Kerry should stay away from the micro level accounting changes that are occurring - Fair Value accounting is coming to Europe by 2005 to be a disclosure item in 2006 reports via the IASB with the support of FASB. Now I once created SPE corporations - the rules the FASB uses are complicated, but the complications do not make them fair - earnings are hid forever and come-back as capital infusions or capital gains - whatever you need. IASB new rules will be materially different from today's GAAP - and if adopted by the US - could replace the silly 2 sets of books now required - a GAAP book, and a FIT Tax book.

Still to be discovered is the "market value of a liability" needed in this game - but that is "phase two"! :-)

this web site follows this discussion www.iasc.org.uk

good luck understanding the difference between fair value reporting, and current value reporting! :-) and stay away from stochastic life cycle accounting!

[revcarol]

8. Please explain, then, how the U. S.unilaterally changes the WTO.

We can change our tax things to be in line with their rules, but this doesn't address any of the labor or environmental things. And it doesn't do anything to protect us against the really low allow-anything-about-the-environment-and worker's-working-conditions-and-wages countries!!It would help us against the Europeans and Japan, maybe.And it does not protect American jobs AT ALL.

The last conferences to even change the WTO a LITTLE, Seattle and Cancun, were TOTAL DISASTERS.

I say, get out, and go back to bi-lateral trade.

[papau]

9. If the WTO can not be changed - we must get out. The corporate power

that opposes environment/worker's-working-conditions-and-wages rules will have to choose between the trade disruption that will occur if we get out, and those rules.

I think Kerry has the balls to pull us out if needed.

But as I said - he has not given details or showed DK's passion on this topic.

[sangha]

10. Pulling out of WTO doesn't address the problem

You are right to be concerned about how we're going to compete with "low allow-anything-about-the-environment-and worker's-working-conditions-and-wages countries". The simple facts is these countries are not going to go away, and they're not going to use the environmental and labor standards we do. For the next few decades, these countries are going to develop, and they will be able to outcompete us on many goods and services due to their lower labor costs. Over time, this is going to cost the US jobs. Eliminating WTO does nothing to address this.

What we need are completely new jobs in areas that don't even exist yet. Kerry's plan to revamp our energy policies and develop technologies that run on a renewable source of energy holds the possibility of creating new industries and new technologies that will create those new jobs.

[revcarol]

11. Yup, he did adopt DK's plan for renewable energy/jobs!!

But I think that the previous poster put his finger on the problem: that multi-national corporations set our agenda and have power over our policies!!

And THAT will only end when we get out of the WTO.

[sangha]

12. Kerry was on this for decades

He didn't adopt DK's position.

And while getting rid of the WTO would reduce the ability of multinationals to dictate our trade policies, it doesn't do much to address the underlying facts that are driving the trend towards globalization.

With or without WTO, these developing nations are going to be competing with us, and as time goes on, they are going to win more and more due to their lower labor costs. The choices will be to continue to let the compete with us, and we lose jobs, or lock/limit their ability to sell to us (with tariffs, sanctions, etc) which leads to their development being stalled.

Do we really want to protect American jobs by preventing the poor people of the world from developing? Does it further our national security to have billions of people living in poverty? With or without the WTO, these are questions we need to be asking ourselves

[revcarol]

13. Clinton came to El Paso, promoting NAFTA as a way to increase the

middle class in Mexico. You seem to have the same line. Do you really think WORKERS who are unable to organize and whose former jobs as farmers have been destroyed by the dumping of low-price farm products on their country are going to BENEFIT from these jobs?

THE ONLY BENEFITS GO TO THE CORPORATIONS.Very little "tinkle-down effect."

Globalization is here to say, I agree. But countries should be able to direct the form and substance of their trade, NOT THE CORPORATIONS.

[sangha]

14. Not the same line

I'm not saying NAFTA or WTO is good for workers in developing nations. What I'm saying is that eliminating NAFTA and WTO (and GATT, etc) does not address the underlying problem which is the threat to American jobs posed by the increasing economic development of poor nations.

Even if NAFTA and GTO required labor and environmental standards comparable to ours, these nations will still have lower labor costs and will outcompete us on the basis of cost. As a result, we will lose jobs here in the US, with or without those trade institutions and agreements.

IOW, I agree with 100% when it comes to allowing corporations to dictate our trade policies. The point I"m trying to make is that regardless of who sets our trade policies, there is a problem here that eliminating WTO and NAFTA does not address.

If you're truly concerned about the poor people in these nations and truly concerned with economic security for American workers (and I believe you are) then you ought to give some consideration to the fact that NONE of the candidates is really addressing *this* issue directly.

[revcarol]

16. THIS issue can be at least partly mitigated in bi-lateral trade agreements

We wouldn't get 100% protection of our workers(or even 50% protection) in most trade agreements because of compromises. But we can accept that they have their national priorities and we have our national priorities, and we will not reach an agreement unless we and they listen and compromise.Treating another nation with respect is the way to go.

Countries would be lining up to sign beneficial trade agreements with THE BIGGEST MARKET IN THE WORLD.

The important thing is that, then, CORPORATIONS WOULD NOT RULE THE WORLD, AND OUR WORKERS WOULD STAND A CHANCE. THEIR ENVIRONMENTS AND WORKERS WOULD STAND A CHANCE.

Now everyone loses. The corporations gain.

[sangha]

21. Actually, even fair trade agreements exacerbate the problem

Free trade agreements accelerate investments in developing nations, thereby accelerating the loss of jobs is nations with high labor costs, such as the US even with labor and environmental standards. In fact, IMO easing the flow of capital globalwide is the main point of free trade agreements and globalization.

Though fair trade, with it's labor and environmental standards, are not as much of an accelerant as laissez-fair policies without those standards, fair trade still does accelerate the process of US job losses because it allows US capital to go towards building factories in other nations where the labor is cheaper.

And again, my point here is that I disagree with you about the right way to do trade and trade agreements. It's about how these issues don't directly address the problems created by the trend towards globalization. Even if we had fair trade agreements, we will still be losing jobs, and any process that results in continuing job losses is not politically stable. After all, enough people will lose their jobs and start demanding that politicians do something about it. At that point, protectionism kicks in and that hurts workers in the US and abroad.

[papau]

22. The inflation that follows 6 months behind fair trade should raise wages

Problem is the depth of the unemployed pool in developing countries - it could take 10 years to drain it -

meanwhile the US worker is in a race to the the bottom - or no job.

Therefore wages MUST BE FORCED HIGHER in developing countries via living wage agreements - which are illegal under the current WTO

Hense RevCarol's dump WTO - DK's dump WTO - and my own try to get living wage into WTO, and if not, dump WTO

[lcordero]

24. The problem with the living wage agreement is that who is going to

enforce it.

As is, we do not do a very good job of keeping track of where our money goes when we are giving foreign aid. Foreign aid becomes dictator welfare.
If we can't keep track of foreign aid, how the hell do we keep track of a living wage in another country?????

Dump the WTO OUTRIGHT!!!

[tameszu]

30. No--bilateral trade

means that the U.S. just squashes the trade partner with corporate power EVERY time. There is NO incentive for the stronger country to look toward standards of long-term fairness in bilateral trade agreements. In fact, the U.S. can basically look at bilateral trade agreements as paper barriers that it can break almost at will, if a big corp or important industrial sector lobbies hard enough. The ONLY thing that can restrict U.S. market power is a multilateral agreement.

Going back to a system of all bilateral trade is a DK idea that is distinctly non-progressive, represents short-term thinking, and it bottom-line ridiculous, unless you are a Buchananite isolationist--and a demonstration of where the anti-globalization movement is completely lacking in institutional know-how. It would only help bring back some American jobs in the short-term, and do it on the backs of poor people in the developing world. You might as well push for a global revolution so that the working proletariat can seize the means of production--that is more likely to benefit developing countries...

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. What you are suggesting would not be a good idea

bush will try to paint Kerry as not friendly to business.

So far, Kerry is doing exactly what he should: stressing that he is for the everyday investor, and opposing tax breaks for countries that outsource. That reassures business, and it reassures the shareholders.

He is being very careful not to propose specific changes that could alientate his existing business allies, or scare off new ones, but at the same time expressing support for the principle that trade agreements should be "fair."

The country is in a tricky but crucial stage in the transition to feudalism, and some bumps in the road are unavoidable, as is some acceleration.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[mobuto]

15. What's the problem?

The purpose is to keep countries from engaging in unfair trade practices. We're subsidizing our own manufacturers here to undercut production in other countries. That's just as wrong when we do that to them as when they do that to us. The WTO is just the forum in which countries can settle their disputes. And we need to play by our rules.

[blm]

17. Yes...reduce the issue to black and white. It works for Rush doesn't it?

You don't even have to use your intellect....it's more CLEVER to demagogue the issue.

[revcarol]

18. The problem is that the WTO can't be modified unless all the countries

agree. AND the corporations ARE in charge of the secret tribunals that decide the sanctions and THEY set the rules.

SOOOO, what should the U. S. do, since the WTO has not proven itself beneficial for the U. S.?

[blm]

20. You vote in a US president who CARES about the global environment

and the health of the global economy and fairness to its workers.

Kerry has a long record of believing in free and FAIR trade. He never had the bully pulpit to push it through to implementation. As president, he will.

[papau]

23. I hope - indeed even agree - but after a year in office there will be hell

to pay if he ignors the issue.

Meanwhile BUSH MUST GO!

:-)

[Skip Intro]

26. This is insanity

Trade should exist to, in the end, benefit the people. The bottom line for General Motors or General Electric or Microsoft or ADM or any of the ticker symbols so many swoon over is NOT more important than the bottom line of the public at large - the people. We do not exist at the mercy of the corporations and their profit - they exist for us, and our betterment. At least that's the way it should be, the way we should demand it to be.

Oh, I am suddenly awakening to all kinds of things. And I'll admit my severe lack of knowledge and understanding of NAFTA and WTO etc. I've so much to learn.

But I know one thing - the fraction of one percent of the population of this earth that rakes in the rewards for trade agreements that require the majority of the population to accept less and less, and the possibility of less and less, is fucking doomed to fail, and soon. WE ARE this fucking planet. If "it" - meaning any policy, doesn't benefit the people at large, or at least the majority of the people, then "it" is a fucking fraud, slavery.

I don't know who runs the big show right now, but I know that they'll continue to treat us as slaves, until the day we rise up and say "NO MORE! - this is OUR world - WE will be the beneficiaries of our labor."

[revcarol]

27. WOW

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? <sarcasm>

[Skip Intro]

28. well -

that felt good

so I get a little passionate...

Yeeeaaggghhhhh

:hi:

[snoochie]

31. Trade should benefit both people and corporations

You're so right. Why is striking that balance so hard, anyways?

Workers for Pullman Cars and other corporations during the labor rights movement had to start dying before they got their point across. So far at least one farmer has died trying to get people to hear his cry of desperation re: the WTO. How many have died protesting these investor-protection agreements so far?

I guess there's still a long way to go.

[G_j]

32. very well expressed

I wish more people were as aware of what we are facing.

[Nicholas_J]

29. Kerry is also against

The Bush inspired republican based taxs cuts that are at the Center of the WTO sanctions. Kerry and the other Democrats in congress wanted the tax protections given to corporations that have their plants in the U.S. but who have set their headuaters up offshore in order to avoid U.S. corporate taxes,removed from the tax bill. But rather than consider these companies as foreign corporations, they are given tax breaks on their products, which is considered a subsidy for these corprations by the W.T.O. and the E.U. Kerry was against these tax breaks when the bill was passed (every democrat but Zell Miller and Nelson of Nebraska voted against them), and two Republicans voted against them, but with Cheney's vote, they passed. Bi-Lateral trade agreements would be a total waste of time, as the E.U. nations cannot engage in them
And the WTO members will not engage in them, so the very idea of bi-lateral agreements would reate an economic castastrpohe in the United States. Rather than have small sanctions placed against the U.S. as are now the results of the Bush tax plan, the WTO could easily engage in wholsesale botycotts of all all American products and services, which is the only power card they hold. ANd they will use it.

The only alternative that would be left to a Kucinich government would be to go to war on the nations leading the WTO in order to overrthrow the regimes that will not fall into line with the American Bi-Lateral treaty philosophy. In fact, the idea of Bi-Lateral treaties would increasevthe power of the multi-nationals rather than redce it under the dictum of divide and conquer. Right now it is the European Economic COmmunity who hold the cards in the WTO, and they are far less friendly to multi-national influence than the U.S. is. Far from being favorable to the multi-nationals, the recent sanctions against the U.S.are a slap in the face of the multi-nationals who would prefer a U.S. style business model to the model set up by the E.U.
Comparing the value added tax to the tax cuts that the U.S. gives to large American corporations is not applicable, as the V.A.T. is applied equally to all products whether they are produced in the E.U., or not. The tax system set up under Bush gives favoritism to U.S.. corporation which have decided to become foreign based, and there is all the differnce in the world between the two taxes. The V.A.T. is blind to country of origin of the product.

In order to stop the sanctions, the U.S. is going to have to overturn this portion of the 2002 Bush tax cuts that the Democrats largely opposed, as it gave two separate tax cuts to U.S. corporations that have decided to evade corporate income taxes.

[corporatewhore]

33. we need real liberals not neoliberals