|
Australia / US "Free Trade" Agreement
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Seeing which way the wind is blowing, the Bush administration _ despite all its lip service to free trade and the benefits of open markets _ is one of the most protectionist in recent memory. In 2002 came its controversial decision to impose far-reaching steel tariffs in an effort to save jobs in politically key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
After being forced to lift these tariffs by the European Union's threat of sanctions, the White House turned its attention to pressuring China, whose fixed currency regime it blames for a $US100 billion bilateral trade deficit. In Congress, efforts to enact legislation restricting Chinese imports are already gathering steam.
This brings us to the past month, when Washington and Canberra nearly gave up attempts to hammer out a free-trade accord, mainly because of one important source of revenue for one important constituency in Texas and Louisiana. Yes, the single issue of sugar imports almost torpedoed the talks.
In fact, the final agreement is hardly a boon for Australian farmers; it maintains the status quo in regard to sugar and only modestly reduces restrictions on dairy and beef for the time being. Never mind the fact that Australia is one of the few major countries with which the US actually runs a trade surplus.
That even this agreement _ widely regarded as President George W Bush's political favour to Prime Minister John Howard for his support on Iraq _ was genuinely threatened by sugar industry lobbying shows just how far US public opinion has shifted on this issue. |
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_ar...cname=Australia
I'm not sure how many of you were aware, but over the past few days the once seemingly doomed talks between Australian and American trade negotiators finally came to fruition and left us with a "free-trade" agreement unlikely to make any genuine difference to us on either side of the Pacific. Representatives acting on behalf of two of the supposed champions of neo-liberalism in the west (i.e. Bush and Howard) failed to agree on much (due mainly to the political climate - elections coming up in both countries at the end of the year, both sides reluctant to agree to anything that may jeopardise their chances of winning) demonstrating that for all the two sides are able to talk up the merits of free-trade when they stand to benefit from it, genuinely free trade is something they seem eager to avoid. The only tangible results of this agreement is that Australians will be paying slightly more for drugs under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (allowing American manufacturers into the Aussie market) and Americans will be eating Australian beef in 18 years when the tarrifs are finally phased out. Sugar became an issue, with the US negotiators - acting on behalf of Bush - refusing to remove barriers protecting the inefficient US cane-growers from Australian sugar exports (mainly in order to help preserve jobs in strategically important electoral states) even though US companies (according to an article I read in the Australian Financial Review today) pay 2-3 times more for sugar than they would had tarrifs on Australian sugar imports been removed as part of the free-trade deal. The article also suggested that by protecting the innefficient cane-growers, the US is actually losing more jobs than it is saving as many US companies are moving to Canada and Mexico where such protectionism doesn't exist, and this cheaper sugar is available.
So what is it then? Do we support free trade or don't we? I for one support genuine free-trade and genuine globalisation, why can't the neo-liberals? Thoughts?
(Some more opinion articles on the agreement from Australian newspapers:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...55E7583,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...6388362547.html
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...5E24218,00.html ) |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
So what is it then? Do we support free trade or don't we? I for one support genuine free-trade and genuine globalisation, why can't the neo-liberals? Thoughts? |
i'm also a big supporter of free trade, it would stop the western countries from doing so much 19th century crap (like farming :p) and other unprofitable stuff, and it would help the poor countries to be richer... |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| I am yet to see a better solution out there, as opposed to just producing for your own population and have no international trade. Everyone wants to look out for numero uno in "international trade" the U.S. is and should be no exception to that. Besides I feel the U.S. has lost more than enough jobs with these trade deals, enough is enough and soon Americans will let their own voices be heard about it, if jobs are going to be lost then we might as well get the best deal out of any pacts. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
I am yet to see a better solution out there, as opposed to just producing for your own population and have no international trade. |
Never heard of comparative/absolute advantage? Sometimes it's not in a nation's best interest to employ protectionist and isolationist policies. If Australia is better at producing sugar and the US better at producing medicine (in terms of cost, quantity and the resultant ratio: efficiency) then why should such a free-trade deal be implemented? Even if it meant job losses in the short term, the labour could still be redistributed into more productive areas, no?
| quote: | | Everyone wants to look out for numero uno in "international trade" the U.S. is and should be no exception to that. |
I agree entirely. Every nation wants what is best for itself, and no nation should be forced to drag itself into any trade-deal that jeopardises this aim.
However, if the US wishes to insist on nothing but open economies for the rest of the globe (did you see what the Bush admin had to say about the Chinese yen protectionism recently?) then they need to lead by example. If they realise that free-trade is not in their best interests all the time, then they need to see that it may not be in the best interests of other nations around the globe either. They need to start advocating either free-trade or fair-protectionism, not some sort of schizophrenic intermediate.
| quote: | | Besides I feel the U.S. has lost more than enough jobs with these trade deals, enough is enough and soon Americans will let their own voices be heard about it, if jobs are going to be lost then we might as well get the best deal out of any pacts. |
Yep, so this is the choice: protectionism or free-trade. If open economies are truly the way forward, then why are the neo-liberals in the Bush admin so reluctant to lead the way? There may be losses in the short-term, but commonly accepted economic theory says that this labour will be redistributed into the economic sectors where the nation's comparative advantage lies. Theoretically, both sides should - in the mid-long term - benefit from a free-trade agreement.
I support free-trade. I oppose nations like the US and Australia standing behind bull organisations like the WB and the WTO enforcing agendas upon economically weak nations that these economically strong nations have no intention of fulfilling themselves. I'm a humanist, not a nationalist: if a farmer in Queensland loses a job to a farmer in Zambia then it's all even in my book - we're all human, and if a farmer in Zambia can do his job more efficiently then that's where the resources must be allocated. Time to unite the human race and go global: let's drop this protectionist crap, get sensible and tell the so-called "neo-liberals" that their nationalistic hyprocracy has no place in the modern world. So, er, viva le revolution mes freres? :conf: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I support free-trade, although grantedly much more cautiously now than I used to. I now lean to the belief that you must strike a moderate balance between almost all extremes in life.
Many times tarrifs are necessary.
However, saying that... I don't see why two first world countries can't have a healthy free trade agreement between them.
What striks me in the bit I read (didn't go to the links.. don't have time) is that they only seem to raised the US concerns with this - despite the obvious that negotations are a two way street, what are Austrilian stiking points? What are they demanding that the US is not as welcoming as they are about? Why is this a bad deal for Howard?
Personally I think they should both delay these negotations till after they get rid of their re-election and the political cycle passes in order to achieve a better agreement.
As for the sugar thing -> I know companies like Coca Cola have moved a lot of their bottling to Mexico. But it seems a trend now that to save the extra pennies these coroporations arne't even using Sugar in their drinks anymore, instead using cheaper highly refined corn instead - maize. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Free trade is good, and it goes both ways. Bush needs to get off his ass to start encouraging free trade and leading by example (Europe needs to do the same), and the dems need to stop whining about bush "exporting" all our jobs overseas. You can't have one side arguing for the merits of free trade and criticizing Bush's protectionist policies, while bitching about jobs going to india. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I support free-trade. I oppose nations like the US and Australia standing behind bull organisations like the WB and the WTO enforcing agendas upon economically weak nations that these economically strong nations have no intention of fulfilling themselves. I'm a humanist, not a nationalist: if a farmer in Queensland loses a job to a farmer in Zambia then it's all even in my book - we're all human, and if a farmer in Zambia can do his job more efficiently then that's where the resources must be allocated. Time to unite the human race and go global: let's drop this protectionist crap, get sensible and tell the so-called "neo-liberals" that their nationalistic hyprocracy has no place in the modern world. So, er, viva le revolution mes freres? :conf: |
You are right Renegade, problem is that most of the Western nations and China, India, Brazil, all these large economic nations get together at their fancy conferences and talk the talk, but cannot even crawl much less walk. Nations have little respect for each other in international trade, its how much I can get from you to maximize my profits. Free trade is a hollowed term because I am yet to see such a framework in operation. Even the U.S. and Canada constantly bitch at each other about lumber and god knows what else. Don't even let me get started on European trade policies. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Even the U.S. and Canada constantly bitch at each other about lumber and god knows what else. |
  |
|
|
|
|
