Transatlantic Free Trade Zone?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by TCO
He thinks the econ prize is not a "true Nobel". It is awarded by a different group and came into being later then the others.

That's why I called it a Nobel prize rather than a Nobel Prize; it's actually a Nobel Memorial Prize, but, being associated (by name) with Nobel, and being a prize, it is a Nobel prize

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by VJ
KH = Owned

VJ = double pwned for not getting the joke

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
Kitty knows that MF got a Nobel in econ. He thinks the econ prize is not a "true Nobel". It is awarded by a different group and came into being later then the others.

Learn some subtlety, ya maroons.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
Actually I don't even know if he really cares about "real Nobels" or is just getting a rise by being a stuck up physicist.

A little from column A, a little from column B...

[Whaleboy]

Where I work, I import aerospace metals from the USA to the UK. While import duty is a pain in the ass, that's more than made up for by the fantastic exchange rate (currently around $1.90 : £1.00). Every little helps though .

[VetLegion]

Checked out the trade diversion links. They're technically correct. However, they constitute a special case and aren't an argument against transatlantic, or any other free trade arrangement. One of the main problems with promoting free trade is the well known fact that negatives of trade are concentrated (people in uncompetitive industry X can lose jobs), while the positives are mostly spread out (many people will have marginally cheaper good X). For countries joining a free trade area, the idea is to join it only if net welfare in it is going to increase, and that, ceteris paribus, has to happen, as both theory and practice show. Trade diversion, like job losses, is going to be concentrated in some industries without the ability to turn the net welfare increase (for a country joining a free trade zone) negative.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's been going off and on for 25 years and it makes America look hypocritical on the topic of free trade.

It is highly annoying and worrying given that we signed onto a deal that has seen us make large adjustments to participate in continental free trade.

The basis for the argument is that companies in Canada pay less then fair market or even provailing market rates to log lumber in Canada. The US considers this a subsidy and an unfair business practice.

Since the court rulings have been mixed the Canadians really have no other choice but to negotiate and the deal now being offered is pretty damn fair.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The basis for the argument is that companies in Canada pay less then fair market or even provailing market rates to log lumber in Canada. The US considers this a subsidy and an unfair business practice.

Since the court rulings have been mixed the Canadians really have no other choice but to negotiate and the deal now being offered is pretty damn fair.

Yep, that's the winning attitude. Keep up the good work.

[Dinner]

I got a $1 that says the Canadian government goes for the deal currently being offered.

[Wezil]

Sure they will. PM Steve will bend over and grab his ankles to make his good buddy George happy.

The Canadian industry however is not happy but will agree to the 'deal' as PM Steve has made it clear he will not fight for them on this issue.

Too bad we can't get a PM willing to fight for the Canadian industry.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I got a $1 that says the Canadian government goes for the deal currently being offered.

We already did, dude...

[KrazyHorse]

Since the court rulings have been mixed

No, you just refused to enforce them

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The basis for the argument is that companies in Canada pay less then fair market or even provailing market rates to log lumber in Canada. The US considers this a subsidy and an unfair business practice.

Since the court rulings have been mixed the Canadians really have no other choice but to negotiate and the deal now being offered is pretty damn fair.

hmmm-- if we auction off timber rights in an open auction that anyone can bid , isn't the resulting bid at market rates pretty much by definition?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon™
Considering diplomats have limited resources and time, it'd be far better to invest these in seeking after global deals that may only partly lower trade barriers, than it would be to invest in seeking after bilateral deals that may fully lower trade barriers - because global deals solely lead to creation of trade and not to diversion.

In the case of a NATO free trade zone, such substantial energies would have to be devoted in reconciling the Franco-American positions, that you might just as well do it for the purpose of getting the WTO-negotiations going again.

Is progress on WTO really constrained by a shortage of diplo time? Thats the first ive heard of that.

[KrazyHorse]

No, because the rates set that way aren't exactly the same as the ones set in US states. Duh.