2 comments

  • I think one of the things that trade policy people have got to get a better fix on, and Erin mentions it in this panel, is not all international trade should be treated equal.

    There is now homogeneity that seems to pervade the notion of international trade that so easily is swept under the carpet by out of touch trade lawyers and such.

    Social policy is trade policy, you cannot just simply say that the two are not connected and somehow the WTO can avoid socil policy implications by pretending it is some objective dispute mechanism.

    It automatically by trying to pretend all trade is fairly homogeneous, become an intrument of the developed nations of the world.

    So lets be clear- trade with between developing and developed nations that is based on the backs of low wages, low standards for product quality, and lower environmental policy, is not the same as trade based upon comparative advantage, technological advantage based upon innovation.

    Plain and simple- and to hear the trade lawyer say that he was in India and did not see a race to the bottom, was a complete joke. Go to an export processing zone that employs over 60 million workers across the globe and I will show you a race to the bottom.

    Wow that guy sure had his head up is anal cavity.

    The elitist economic thinking shown in such institutions as the WTO is just nauseating. With blinders like that on it is no wonder the developing nations will never lose the title developing!

  • I enjoyed the show. I rarely watch Vale Inco. I hate mining companies. The TVO/ Agenda forums are dreadful. The Agenda is biased, most often featuring only or mostly rightwing commentators.

    Who’s side was I on in the debate? I was on the side of the gentlemen who tried to make the point that, ‘Hello! Where are THE PEOPLE in all this trade talk?’ It had little impact on the true believers on the panel, as one would expect. (Capitalists are such nice, charming people though!)

    I don’t know whether Andrew was winding up or finishing up when he was addressing the question of impacts of Buy American. He mentioned the altering of procurement polices of provinces, which I read was a big negative – from the standpoint of fair traders and voters who want their governments to be comprised of people who they vote for. But he didn’t get into it further.

    How long will it be until we get another Agenda show that isn’t the usual 4 panelists all in agreement or 3 against 1? No matter. There are many more sources of information out there that are useful and not annoying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.