• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A View on NAFTA

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Sandman,

If the WTO has enforcement authority and the individual countries have given up their soverignty to the WTO as you say, why can't we export beef to the EU unless it's growth hormone free?


~SH~
 
What makes you think these guys aren't basing their decisions on their own knowledge?

Not everyone is a mindless follower like you.

WE GIVE SOMETHING UP TO AN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY DURING NEGOTIATIONS, NOT TO THE WTO!

The WTO may make a recommendation but that recommendation is not carried out unless the individual country addressed in the ruling decides to carry it out.

If the WTO has enforcement power, WHY AREN'T WE EXPORTING MORE THAN IMPLANT FREE BEEF TO THE EU?????

Answer that question Sandman?

YOU CAN'T CAN YOU????

THE WTO VOTED IN OUR FAVOR yet the EU decided to ban our beef imports anyway.

SO MUCH FOR THE WTO HAVING ANY ENFORCEMENT POWER !!!!

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for you isn't it? SHte] From SH
What makes you think these guys aren't basing their decisions on their own knowledge?

Not everyone is a mindless follower like you.

WE GIVE SOMETHING UP TO AN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY DURING NEGOTIATIONS, NOT TO THE WTO!

The WTO may make a recommendation but that recommendation is not carried out unless the individual country addressed in the ruling decides to carry it out.

If the WTO has enforcement power, WHY AREN'T WE EXPORTING MORE THAN IMPLANT FREE BEEF TO THE EU?????

Answer that question Sandman?

YOU CAN'T CAN YOU????

THE WTO VOTED IN OUR FAVOR yet the EU decided to ban our beef imports anyway.

SO MUCH FOR THE WTO HAVING ANY ENFORCEMENT POWER !!!!

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for you isn't it? SH

The EU may have real reasons for banning implant beef. Just because you think the U.S. should implant hormones, which we outlaw in atheletics, doesn't mean that the EU can't ban them. Maybe they should have just said that the U.S. has to lable all hormone beef they import. By the USDA, and NCBA's reasoning, it would be too expensive to lable the meat and that would be the end of that. You are selling cheap whiskey, SH, maybe it should be labled as such so you do not fool anyone anymore.

I see a new campagn coming--"Packers have to disclose to consumers artificial implants used in beef industry." Packers must pay penalties on undisclosed hormones--Oh I forgot, you can't beat them in bought off U.S. Court system.
 
Way to throw up a "red herring" to divert the issue of whether or not the WTO has any enforcement authority.

GREAT DIVERTION ECON!

Did you learn that from Bill Bullard or Sandman?

golf clap......golf clap.....golf clap......


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Way to throw up a "red herring" to divert the issue of whether or not the WTO has any enforcement authority.

GREAT DIVERTION ECON!

Did you learn that from Bill Bullard or Sandman?

golf clap......golf clap.....golf clap......


~SH~
Click to expand...

I did not even bring up that point. As for your animation, maybe you would do better to go work for Disney. D-i-v-e-r-s-i-o-n, no t.

The fact is that NAFTA and CAFTA were both designed by big business to gain cheap labor from those countries and open small or non existant markets. They were both sold under the guise of "free trade" with all the arguments for free trade but none of the benefits. I like free trade but these trade agreements have been sold out to big business and their deflationary properties benefit the President's spend, spend spend mentality. It seems the republicans have become democrats and the democrats have become republicans. They are both on the take with big business buying drinks. Drunk with power that they are not good stewards of.

Our country has been partying with Bush putting it all on the credit card of national debt with yours and my children's name on the bottom as the people who have to pay off the balance.

Meanwhile we owe China and other countries more of our national wealth. We are currently being sold out to self interest and nobody seems to know it.
 
The EU may have real reasons for banning implant beef. Just because you think the U.S. should implant hormones, which we outlaw in atheletics, doesn't mean that the EU can't ban them. Maybe they should have just said that the U.S. has to lable all hormone beef they import. By the USDA, and NCBA's reasoning, it would be too expensive to lable the meat and that would be the end of that. You are selling cheap whiskey, SH, maybe it should be labled as such so you do not fool anyone anymore.

I see a new campagn coming--"Packers have to disclose to consumers artificial implants used in beef industry." Packers must pay penalties on undisclosed hormones--Oh I forgot, you can't beat them in bought off U.S. Court system.

With the new Traceback LAWS in the US., EU. ,Japan,Korea,etc. every Foodhandler from pasture to plate will be responseable for decisions they make whether good or bad.
 
Porker, which has more hormones, a typical serving of beef from implanted young cattle, or beef from old cows, or a serving of broccoli?

Sandhusker, what is the status of those "Mexican trucks"? Are they running all over the USA today? Are they inspected and drivers meeting US requirements?

BTW, are treaties truly binding, or are they used while they serve the interests of signers........meaning, aren't most treaties broken by one or both parties virtually before the ink is dry? Historians have told me this is true of virtually all reaties ever signed by any country since the beginning of treaties. And what I've observed within memory and what is available in history books seems to bear it out, though admittedly I certainly haven't read all there is to read on the subject.

MRJ
 
Sandman: "SH, have you decided on whether we have to power to actually ban Mexican trucks from our highways or not?"
Click to expand...

Have you decided on whether the WTO has enforcement power if they ruled against the EU and the EU still has a ban on our beef in place?


Porker: "The EU may have real reasons for banning implant beef."
Click to expand...

Their reasons are irrelevant to the fact that the WTO does not have enforcement power over the EU.


Porker: "Just because you think the U.S. should implant hormones, which we outlaw in atheletics, doesn't mean that the EU can't ban them."
Click to expand...

Now where did that come from?

I never took a position either way on growth hormones, I'm simply stating that the EU did not follow the WTO rule.


Econ. 101: "The fact is that NAFTA and CAFTA were both designed by big business to gain cheap labor from those countries and open small or non existant markets. They were both sold under the guise of "free trade" with all the arguments for free trade but none of the benefits. I like free trade but these trade agreements have been sold out to big business and their deflationary properties benefit the President's spend, spend spend mentality."
Click to expand...

The fact is that your opinions are not fact, they are opinions.



~SH~
 
The EU did not simply thumb their noses at the WTO's "suggestion". The WTO authorized (funny how they can do that with no power :roll: ) the US retalitory sanctions. The EU is paying a penalty.

Now, climb out of your tree and try to address your comment about those Mexican trucks...
 
Sandhusker
Now what if the EU actually had thumbed their nose (as has been known to be done by certain other countries.. funny how they can do that when the WTO has all this power) at the WTO decision and refused to pay. Then where would we be?
Getting back to the Mexican truck issue. Are you suggesting the US should have the power to unilaterally ban ALL Mexican trucks (other than that really big convoy heading to the Gulf Coast of course), or just the power to enforce USDOT safety rules on a case by case basis?
 
Silver said:
Sandhusker
Now what if the EU actually had thumbed their nose (as has been known to be done by certain other countries.. funny how they can do that when the WTO has all this power) at the WTO decision and refused to pay. Then where would we be?
Getting back to the Mexican truck issue. Are you suggesting the US should have the power to unilaterally ban ALL Mexican trucks (other than that really big convoy heading to the Gulf Coast of course), or just the power to enforce USDOT safety rules on a case by case basis?
Click to expand...

The EU is not writing a check, they are paying whether they want to or not thru retalitory tariffs.

Yes, I am saying the US should have the power to ban ALL Mexican trucks if we want to. Without getting into the wisdom/foolishness of such a move, do I need to point out that it's our country? Mexico should have to power to ban ours as well - it's their country.
 
Quote:
Econ. 101: "The fact is that NAFTA and CAFTA were both designed by big business to gain cheap labor from those countries and open small or non existant markets. They were both sold under the guise of "free trade" with all the arguments for free trade but none of the benefits. I like free trade but these trade agreements have been sold out to big business and their deflationary properties benefit the President's spend, spend spend mentality."


The fact is that your opinions are not fact, they are opinions.



~SH~

Yes, and in the Pickett case the opinion of the jury was supposed to count, not the judges. It was not military court.
 
Yes, and in the Pickett case the opinion of the jury was supposed to count, not the judges. It was not military court.
Click to expand...

Remember how big a part the idea of "efficiency" played in Tyson's defense.

Maybe the judge has now concluded that jury trials are "inefficient" After all, if we want efficiency we should do away with jury trials, reduce congress to only one member, and let Tyson monopolize the entire protein business.

We should if "efficiency" is king.
 
ocm said:
Yes, and in the Pickett case the opinion of the jury was supposed to count, not the judges. It was not military court.
Click to expand...

Remember how big a part the idea of "efficiency" played in Tyson's defense.

Maybe the judge has now concluded that jury trials are "inefficient" After all, if we want efficiency we should do away with jury trials, reduce congress to only one member, and let Tyson monopolize the entire protein business.

We should if "efficiency" is king.
Click to expand...

I already know how that story goes.
 
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker
Now what if the EU actually had thumbed their nose (as has been known to be done by certain other countries.. funny how they can do that when the WTO has all this power) at the WTO decision and refused to pay. Then where would we be?
Getting back to the Mexican truck issue. Are you suggesting the US should have the power to unilaterally ban ALL Mexican trucks (other than that really big convoy heading to the Gulf Coast of course), or just the power to enforce USDOT safety rules on a case by case basis?
Click to expand...

The EU is not writing a check, they are paying whether they want to or not thru retalitory tariffs.

Yes, I am saying the US should have the power to ban ALL Mexican trucks if we want to. Without getting into the wisdom/foolishness of such a move, do I need to point out that it's our country? Mexico should have to power to ban ours as well - it's their country.
Click to expand...

No, the EU is not writing a cheque, but they are paying because they WANT to, rather than back down on the issue. And might I point out that it's not the WTO collecting the sanctions? The facts are that without the WTO, there would still be sanctions. The fact that the WTO is there acting as a supposed impartial referee is the main reason there isn't nearly the all out trade wars going on that there used to be. Neither one of our countries would benefit from an all out trade war, and the fact that the The WTO and NAFTA give us parameters to stay within is all that's stopping one right now. Although from what I've read Canada has been given the latitude to start one if she chose to.
As far as the Mexican truck go, I give a damn one way or the other, but I would expect that the US would be willing to suffer the consequences of such actions by the Mexican gov't should they choose to do such a thing. I would expect that somewhere in a NAFTA document signed by both parties under no duress is a clause about free movement of goods, and another about respecting state and national laws. But thats supposition on my part, I'm not about to read through that one. Gets back to being responsible, and if a country wants to continue to be held in international esteem it better be treating others as it would expect to be treated, and broadly banning trucks of a nationality wouldn't appear very grown up OR responsible.
 
Sandman: "The EU did not simply thumb their noses at the WTO's "suggestion". The WTO authorized (funny how they can do that with no power ) the US retalitory sanctions. The EU is paying a penalty."
Click to expand...

The heck if they didn't. The EU is not importing beef from the US unless it's guaranteed to be implant free which was against WTO recommendations.

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN, AS ALWAYS!

The US would have sanctioned the EU with or without the WTO's "RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS".

Never mind. You are just too dense to understand that the WTO does not have any enforcement power even when faced with the facts of the WTO recommendation regarding the EU beef ban.



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Sandman: "The EU did not simply thumb their noses at the WTO's "suggestion". The WTO authorized (funny how they can do that with no power ) the US retalitory sanctions. The EU is paying a penalty."
Click to expand...

The heck if they didn't. The EU is not importing beef from the US unless it's guaranteed to be implant free which was against WTO recommendations.

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN, AS ALWAYS!

The US would have sanctioned the EU with or without the WTO's "RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS".

Never mind. You are just too dense to understand that the WTO does not have any enforcement power even when faced with the facts of the WTO recommendation regarding the EU beef ban.



~SH~
Click to expand...

I think what you are arguing proves my case. These trade agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. They are just a way for large corporations to get advantages under the guise of "free trade". It is too bad either the current president of the U. S. is either stupid or bought off or both. That is not good for anyone in the world.

Keep talking SH.
 
Econ. 101: "These trade agreements are not worth the paper they are written on."
Click to expand...

I'll take that as your admission that Sandman is wrong to suggest that the WTO has enforcement power.

You guys can hash it out now.


~SH~
 
SH, if the WTO had no enforcement power, why would anybody sign up? Why would it even exist? Why are there huge demonstrations, with people even setting themselves on fire if the WTO can only make "suggestions". Can't you open your eyes and make logical deductions from what you see? You can't even understand the basics. Be a fool if you choose.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top