Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

[pointrider]

Hi folks!

Is it time to bury all the hatchets? Some folks believe it is.

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

"The prosperity agenda of the SPP seeks to enhance the competitive position of North American industries in the global marketplace and to provide greater economic opportunity for all of our societies, while maintaining high standards of health and safety for our people. To this end, the United States, Mexico, and Canada will work together, and in consultation with stakeholders to:

- Improve Productivity
- Reduce the Costs of Trade
- Enhance the Quality of Life"

--------- and much more

Here's the link to SPP.GOV

http://www.spp.gov/prosperity_agenda/index.asp?dName=prosperity_agenda

It's all about global competition. And that means change. It will be interesting to see how this develops, and how much input all of the various interest groups and industries will generate as we go along. By the way, the big transportation corridor from southern Mexico to Canada (through Texas, Kansas City and Minnesota) is due to begin next year. The land acquisition and early construction phase.

Do you know where your government officials are today? lol !!!!!!!

 

[Econ101]

Pointrider, the benefits of global trade that were championed by NAFTA haven't materialized for anyone but the traders like Walmart.

Why would anyone support such nonsense?

What happens when the efficiency of industrial ag. production hits the third world? Do they employ more people or put more people out of work?

What happens to the people put out of work when there is not other work for them to do?

They become terrorists.

This "free trade" has huge costs and we are paying for some of it right now in blood and treasure.

It is not costs Walmart has to absorb.

 

[Mike]

When did all this talk recently about "Global Trade" come about? There is nothing new about it. My Great grandad loaded cotton going to England on a riverboat back in the 1800's.

Why is it that this seems to be something for everyone to jump on the bandwagon about all of a sudden?

Is it because we have bought so much more from other countries and we must hurry and get our money back? i.e. Trade deficits?

Somebody clue me in.

 

[Econ101]

Global trade talks collapse, Doha round delayed indefinitely



KTIC 840 Rural Radio

July 25, 2006



GENEVA (AP) _ WTO members called a halt to more than five years

of commerce liberalization talks Monday as differences over farm

aid proved unbridgeable.



Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organization,

said a deal billed as a recipe for lifting millions of people

worldwide out of poverty would not be reached by the end of the

year and there was no new timetable for completing the round.



``We are in dire straits,'' Lamy said after six of the WTO's

most powerful members failed to agree on steps toward liberalizing

trade in farm and manufactured goods. He said he did not intend to

propose any new deadlines or a date for negotiators to resume

meeting.



The 25-nation European Union criticized U.S. intransigence over

agricultural subsidies for the breakdown, while the United States

blamed Brazil and India for being inflexible on cutting barriers to

industrial imports and the EU for refusing to make deeper cuts in

its farm import tariffs.



Last week, presidents and prime ministers from the Group of

Eight leading industrialized countries called a new trade deal a

top priority. But that promise did not translate into real

negotiating action during two days of meetings facilitated by Lamy

between Australia, Brazil, the EU, India, Japan and the United

States.



Now the whole process of agreeing to a binding treaty may have to be put on ice until after U.S. presidential elections in 2008

because President George W. Bush's ``fast-track'' authority to

strike trade deals expires next year.



Without that measure, which requires an up or down vote without amendments, it would be much harder to gain congressional approval in the U.S., the world's largest trading nation.



Analysts have warned that a failure of the Doha round will lead

to more bilateral trade pacts between nations, which are not

expected to bring as many economic benefits as the multilateral

deal.



Some ministers also warned Monday that the suspension of the

Doha talks, which were launched in Qatar's capital in 2001, might

also cause an increase in the number of trade disputes being

brought to the WTO.



``This is a serious setback, a major setback,'' said Brazilian

Foreign Minister Celso Amorim,



``It is somewhere between intensive care and the crematorium,'' India's Trade and Industry Minister Kamal Nath said of the Doha round, which aims to boost the global economy by lowering trade barriers across all sectors, with particular emphasis on helping poorer countries develop their economies through export growth.



Nath said ``it could take anywhere from months to years'' to

restart the negotiations, which stalled as poorer countries

demanded that the EU and United States offer greater cuts in

support for their farmers.



The U.S. and EU in turn want major developing countries like

Brazil and India to allow more foreign competition in their

industrial and services sectors.



But at times, the almost incessant sniping between the EU and

the U.S. has appeared the greatest obstacle.



``The United States judged that it would be better for the

process to be discontinued at this stage,'' said EU trade chief

Peter Mandelson, adding that he was disappointed that the

flexibility Bush indicated at the G-8 summit was not realized in

negotiations.



``Surely the richest and strongest nation in the world, with the

highest standards of living in the world, can afford to give as

well as take,'' Mandelson said, adding that the stoppage in

negotiations ``was neither desirable nor inevitable. It could so

easily have been avoided.''



But U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said Lamy told U.S. negotiators there wasn't enough movement among other countries to put additional U.S. offers on the table. She said the EU was trying to protect itself by blaming the U.S.



``The finger-pointing can't hide the fact that their average

tariff is twice as high as ours and that their farm subsidies are

more than three times what ours are,'' Schwab said on a conference call.



U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said proposals by other

countries ``appeared to be getting lighter and lighter in the last

few weeks.''



``There was just simply nothing there,'' Johanns said.



The U.S. indicated to its trading partners that it could make

greater cuts in its agricultural subsidies, Johanns and Schwab

said. But both declined to say whether Washington had made a

concrete proposal.



Mandelson said the meeting broke down when the U.S. maintained its hardline stance on farm support programs after all others had outlined where they could compromise.



``The U.S. was unwilling to accept or indeed to acknowledge the flexibilities being showed by others in the room and as a result

felt unable to show any flexibility on the issue of farm subsidies,'' he said.



Advocacy groups criticized both the EU and the U.S. for spending ore time fighting one another and less time concentrating on the eeds of poorer countries.



``You could give this four weeks, four months, four years or

four centuries. It doesn't make a difference,'' said Matt Grainger,

spokesman for international aid agency Oxfam. ``The U.S. and the EU efuse to accept that they have to cut their agricultural

support.''



kticam.com

 

[pointrider]

Mike, the way I see it, a lot more people started having opinions about trade when 9-11 happened, when the NAFTA agreement was signed and when the BSE/Canadian border issue became front burner. Realize, of course, that each person comes at the issue of trade from his or her own biased viewpoint with his or her interests in mind. Only normal that this should happen. Global trade goes way farther back than the 1800's, and it will remain a fact of life. But the issue surges like the tides. We happen to be in a high tide era in my opinion.

I don't believe there are very many people on this forum who want to try to see a much bigger picture than what is presented most of the time. At the risk of being called a "Bush supporter" I will go out on a limb and say that I believe that our government has a lot more knowledge than the average citizen about such things as nation alliances, global trade, the competition for the world's natural resources and the manufacturing that goes with the resources, the competition for energy supplies, etc., etc. I believe that George W. Bush knows that he can only convince so many people of this phenomenon and of the need to compete, so he says what he can and does what he can without saying anything. It's a delicate balancing act for him as an individual and for his Republican party. But it has to be done.

Econ's post included the following: "Analysts have warned that a failure of the Doha round will lead to more bilateral trade pacts between nations, which are not expected to bring as many economic benefits as the multilateral deal."

I agree. "The beat goes on." "The road goes on forever and the party never ends."

Everyone says the U.S. is the strongest nation on earth, but, even if we are, are we effective going it alone? The E.U. is about 25 or 28 nations. The North American Union would only be 3 nations. We didn't get the job done concerning the Doha talks even though we took a tough line in these negotiations. How can we fight the E.U. whose subsidies are 2-3 times as much as ours if we can't get it done the way it is now?

If I were a betting man, I would bet that Econ's announcement is not going to stop the Trans Texas Corridor and all the other parts of the SPP.GOV project. So, that means the negotiations will continue on a daily basis until deals are done.

That's what I think, Mike.

Econ, you talk a lot about Wal-Mart. Let me ask you, if you could pass the laws would you have limited the number of stores that Wal-Mart could build. Where would you have said to Sam Walton, "Sam, yeah we all believe in capitalism and free enterprise, but you can only build x number of stores. And you can only have x number of companies that build that number of stores. Etc. Etc." What would you have done, Econ? And perhaps you could describe for us the group you belong to and their mission in light of your points of view which are in abundance on this forum. I can't quite get a handle on it. And yes, if you will, I will.

 

[Brad S]

Hey point rider, econ is an aggie boy like you (I think). Ya know the ol saying, if one matriculated at Haaavard, within 10 minutes of meeting someone, the Harvard grad will make his alma matre known. Well I guess I understand about Harvard, but ATM? Just joking, I like Aggie pride - its honest (perhaps misdirrected )


Its easy to fall into the trap of mistrusting trade and exporting jobs, but an examination of the result of trade on employment shows that yes while some good jobs are exported, they're replaced by more lucrative jobs. The US is still full of opportunity and trade is enhancing this opportuity.

Warren Buffet has suggested that perhaps the US is outsourcing too much production. He may be right - he's damn smart. the market will correct overreactions.

 

[Econ101]

Mike, the way I see it, a lot more people started having opinions about trade when 9-11 happened, when the NAFTA agreement was signed and when the BSE/Canadian border issue became front burner. Realize, of course, that each person comes at the issue of trade from his or her own biased viewpoint with his or her interests in mind. Only normal that this should happen. Global trade goes way farther back than the 1800's, and it will remain a fact of life. But the issue surges like the tides. We happen to be in a high tide era in my opinion.

I don't believe there are very many people on this forum who want to try to see a much bigger picture than what is presented most of the time. At the risk of being called a "Bush supporter" I will go out on a limb and say that I believe that our government has a lot more knowledge than the average citizen about such things as nation alliances, global trade, the competition for the world's natural resources and the manufacturing that goes with the resources, the competition for energy supplies, etc., etc. I believe that George W. Bush knows that he can only convince so many people of this phenomenon and of the need to compete, so he says what he can and does what he can without saying anything. It's a delicate balancing act for him as an individual and for his Republican party. But it has to be done.

Econ's post included the following: "Analysts have warned that a failure of the Doha round will lead to more bilateral trade pacts between nations, which are not expected to bring as many economic benefits as the multilateral deal."

I agree. "The beat goes on." "The road goes on forever and the party never ends."

Everyone says the U.S. is the strongest nation on earth, but, even if we are, are we effective going it alone? The E.U. is about 25 or 28 nations. The North American Union would only be 3 nations. We didn't get the job done concerning the Doha talks even though we took a tough line in these negotiations. How can we fight the E.U. whose subsidies are 2-3 times as much as ours if we can't get it done the way it is now?

If I were a betting man, I would bet that Econ's announcement is not going to stop the Trans Texas Corridor and all the other parts of the SPP.GOV project. So, that means the negotiations will continue on a daily basis until deals are done.

That's what I think, Mike.

Econ, you talk a lot about Wal-Mart. Let me ask you, if you could pass the laws would you have limited the number of stores that Wal-Mart could build. Where would you have said to Sam Walton, "Sam, yeah we all believe in capitalism and free enterprise, but you can only build x number of stores. And you can only have x number of companies that build that number of stores. Etc. Etc." What would you have done, Econ? And perhaps you could describe for us the group you belong to and their mission in light of your points of view which are in abundance on this forum. I can't quite get a handle on it. And yes, if you will, I will.

Pointrider, I don't have a problem with the number of stores Walmart has. The number is not the problem, the abuse of the power they have is the problem. Walmart, under Sam Walton, was one of the best things to have hit the retail industry. It is likened to the department store revolution. The anticompetitive behavior was not. Unfortunately, the laws we have on the books right now are being enforced. The Robinson Patman Act is not being enforced by the courts. It is allowing market power to be exerted and market power is a negative in a free market and to the competitive markets that have harnassed the power of capitalism.

Please try to parse these differences out. They are extremely important. Try not to group it all in one. You will not see the problems I am addressing if you do not.

I will give you one example with China and the power of international trade. China is manipulating their currency by pegging it. Free trade between countries requires currencies to be free to move up and down. When one country subsidizes their currency in the way that China does, they start having these huge trade deficits. In effect, they are "cheating" their own people in this method but they are benefitting in a strategic sense. George Bush was not able to do anything about the Chinese currency manipulation because the Chinese hold so much U.S. currency (debt). In effect, the Chinese are taking the money that their citizens are earning and instead of allowing their citizens to keep the money and then buy U.S. goods and services, they are buying U.S. debt. George B. can do nothing about it because he is the one benefitting from the deal in the form of lower interest rates. His hands were tied in the argument because of his self interest. The Chinese are just playing him based on his own faults.

We have truely lost a large part our bargaining power with China because of this when it comes to our economy.

I am all for free and fair trade. We are not getting it right now. Ask any manufactorer who has lost his manufactoring base to China under the current system of trade and the currency manipulation China is playing with the pegged Yuan.

Walmart is just arbitraging these circumstances for their own bottom line but at the expense of U.S. producers. This does not even address the market power plays going on in the U.S. on a micro level.

 

[Econ101]

Hey point rider, econ is an aggie boy like you (I think). Ya know the ol saying, if one matriculated at Haaavard, within 10 minutes of meeting someone, the Harvard grad will make his alma matre known. Well I guess I understand about Harvard, but ATM? Just joking, I like Aggie pride - its honest (perhaps misdirrected )


Its easy to fall into the trap of mistrusting trade and exporting jobs, but an examination of the result of trade on employment shows that yes while some good jobs are exported, they're replaced by more lucrative jobs. The US is still full of opportunity and trade is enhancing this opportuity.

Warren Buffet has suggested that perhaps the US is outsourcing too much production. He may be right - he's damn smart. the market will correct overreactions.

Brad, in the previous post I showed where the U.S. is hamstrung on promoting the rules of free trade because of politician's self interest. These problems are not only with trade, but with policies in the region of influence that China is in. What did the U.S. do in relation to the chinese takeover of Tibet? What about the policies regarding other countries in the region like Tiawan?

I would submit to you, that in the arena of freedom and democracy, these countries (and others) have paid the price of "market overreactions".

Capitalism is its own worst enemy when the rules of the game are not enforced. The question is, who pays the price? Should G.W. be allowed to sell out the manufactoring base and or the rest of the economy because of the inability of the Congress (and the white house) to control government spending? We have a housing bubble in our economy right now and depressed agriculture (talking long run). How does suppression of the agriculture industry via the abuse of market power that translates ultimately into higher housing values help the economy?

There will be corrections, Brad. It just seems the accountability is not there.

 

[pointrider]

Econ, I have two sets of questions for you.

The first set is regarding Wal-Mart. The second set is about you and/or your group.

First set:

When did Wal-Mart abuse their market power (in your opinion)? Was it when Sam told his buyers to be tough buyers? Was it when Sam told his folks to find places to build stores that were located in high traffic areas of towns and cities? Was it when he told the merchandisers to have a "everyday low prices" policy for sales? Was it when they discovered they could buy goods from China that were high enough quality and at a good price - a quality/price point combination that his customers wanted to buy? Was it when they decided to build supercenters?

I could add more, but that should be enough for you to get the point. I have been in Wal-Mart stores in every region of the country, and I have not seen predatory pricing on a local basis designed to get rid of certain mom and pop competitors in a given town. I don't believe they do that. I know that other companies have done that from time to time, but not Wal-Mart. So, ????????????????

Second set:

Are you a loner? Or do you feel that there is a "group" of people in this country that pretty much feels the same way you do about most things? If you belong to a group, how would you describe that group, and what is their mission.

Also, regardless of the above (loner or group), how many changes do you expect in the areas that you talk about all the time which will be beneficial to cow-calf producers in the next 5 years? In the next 10 years? In the next 20 years? You must have some goals in mind. I would hate to think you spend all this time talking about market power abuses, etc., etc., to just be talking. Perhaps you could share some thoughts with us along these lines.

I want to believe you are a good person with good intentions. Nobody wants to encourage market power abuses (except maybe a few greedy shareholders) and things like that. The question in my mind is, how much time and energy do we put into trying to solve the problems of the world, and how much do we put into running our businesses in today's environment for the purpose of trying to make a profit and staying in business? We should do both. The question is the proportion.

Thanks for your participation in this thread.

 

[Brad S]

I think I've seen evidence of Walleys wielding excessive strength in small markets like Pratt Ks, after competitors are scarce. I have a friend whose mom works at the Pratt store, but she shops at Hutchinson "because its cheaper." Pratt is pretty much down to Walleys, but Hutch has a very competitive market.

I don't see much I want at Walleys, but my wife has her own checkout line reserved - and so goes the fued. Buy more for less or buy what lasts and use less.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Nafta may /may not been good for the *US* depends on who you talk to,but it is a nightmare for the cattle man,packers sourcing cheap beef to depress prices,you would have to look long and hard to find a rancher that is an nafta advocate..................good luck

 

[Econ101]

Pointrider, Azzam wrote an article on Walmart and some of the market power abuses. They are not just on the purchasing side.

I belong to a group of people that can actually think about what is happening in the world. They are not all related.

As I stated before, Newt Gingrich and Tom Foley, both former speakers of the house, were talking about some of these issues on CNN the other morning.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. by Thomas Jefferson.

We haven't had it much out of our Congress during this administration.

Is it going to change? Yes, it will. One way or another. You don't subvert "truth" and get away with it forever.

 

[PORKER]

Doud added: "The fact that the European Union isn't interested in providing anyone, including the United States, additional access into their market smacks of pure protectionism. Protectionism was the reason the European Common Agricultural Policy concept was established decades ago. It is what we fought against in the Uruguay Round; it is the reason U.S. beef is locked out of the European Union; and it is the reason for today's collapse of the Doha Round of WTO negotiations.

Doud doesn't need to beat around the bush,All he wants is to send commoditity beef to the EU. with out traceability. The only one shipping beef is Greater Omaha to Europe because they adhere to the EU. Traceability rules.The EU will not accept any beef if there is not traceback and no Hormones.

 

[Econ101]

Doud added: "The fact that the European Union isn't interested in providing anyone, including the United States, additional access into their market smacks of pure protectionism. Protectionism was the reason the European Common Agricultural Policy concept was established decades ago. It is what we fought against in the Uruguay Round; it is the reason U.S. beef is locked out of the European Union; and it is the reason for today's collapse of the Doha Round of WTO negotiations.

Doud doesn't need to beat around the bush,All he wants is to send commoditity beef to the EU. with out traceability. The only one shipping beef is Greater Omaha to Europe because they adhere to the EU. Traceability rules.The EU will not accept any beef if there is not traceback and no Hormones.

....and disguise it under "free trade".

These trade agreements have been business interest movements that have ended up cheating producers. It is amazing that the USDA tries to get everyone to be "the same" in standards just so the traders can profit. Market differentiation and added value through it is the way to higher prices for producers. Commodity beef doesn't want that, unless they control it. These branded beef programs are a perfect example of differentiation and playing to customer desires and wants.

Commodity beef wants all beef (and chicken or whatever else) to be the same so they can win in the "efficiencies of scale" game which is many times another word for abuse of market power. MID plays to that goal. The arguments in the organic side of the industry (dairy cows eating grass) where big business is trying to get their hand in the cookie jar play to that goal also.

Sometimes it isn't about "efficiency" it is about what you put in your body and what you support with your money.

Producers can get value for that but companies with felony convictions have a harder time unless it is disguised under some "branded" program SH promotes.

 

[PORKER]

I believe that the pasture rule will be ready this fall for the organic sector.

 

[pointrider]

The Arizona Republic
Thursday, July 27,2006

"Trade with China increases: China is set to overtake Japan this year as America's third-largest export market, an American trade official said Wednesday. U.S. exports to China grew 36.5% in the first five months of the year over the same period in 2005, said Franklin Lavin, undersecretary for international trade."

I realize that we have a long way to go to sell as much to China as we buy from them, but maybe this is some good evidence that things will start to equalize more. One of the theories in trade is that if we buy stuff from them, then they have the money to buy stuff from us. We get what they can produce better and cheaper and they buy what we can produce better and cheaper. At least that's the theory.

How will you fit in the global economy in the future? I believe I can help you know what to do if you are a cow-calf producer. Just send me a personal message or an email, and we can start talking.

 

[Mike]

One of the theories in trade is that if we buy stuff from them, then they have the money to buy stuff from us.

So in essence, they are buying our stuff with our money? (Or what USED to be our money). :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

One of the theories in trade is that if we buy stuff from them, then they have the money to buy stuff from us.

So in essence, they are buying our stuff with our money? (Or what USED to be our money). :lol:

That was one of the lines used when they were pushing NAFTA thru. Turns out the economists didn't think of everything. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

The Arizona Republic
Thursday, July 27,2006

"Trade with China increases: China is set to overtake Japan this year as America's third-largest export market, an American trade official said Wednesday. U.S. exports to China grew 36.5% in the first five months of the year over the same period in 2005, said Franklin Lavin, undersecretary for international trade."

I realize that we have a long way to go to sell as much to China as we buy from them, but maybe this is some good evidence that things will start to equalize more. One of the theories in trade is that if we buy stuff from them, then they have the money to buy stuff from us. We get what they can produce better and cheaper and they buy what we can produce better and cheaper. At least that's the theory.

How will you fit in the global economy in the future? I believe I can help you know what to do if you are a cow-calf producer. Just send me a personal message or an email, and we can start talking.

The big problem with China is the currency manipulation by China pegging the yuan. GW could not call them on it because of the economic clout they had by saving more of the money they earned than what they spent.

In essence, GW was pushed in a corner because of his own self interest and has sold out the "level playing field".

For international trade to be "fair" there must be floating currencies. The yuan is not floating. Not allowing the yuan to float means that the Chinese are subsidizing their trade. It is just like farm subsidies on ag. crops. It is trade distorting.

Now, when we start having the SS payments kicking in because of the actuarial problem in SS benefits, we will still be paying China interest on the money they loaned us. It will compound the future tax burdens on our children.

Pointrider, China has a long way to go before things are on a level playing field. By not having it now, we are selling the future tax liabilty of our children to China in return for lower interest rates and higher growth rates.

Is this your idea of how it should work?

 

[Mike]

One of the theories in trade is that if we buy stuff from them, then they have the money to buy stuff from us.

So in essence, they are buying our stuff with our money? (Or what USED to be our money). :lol:

That was one of the lines used when they were pushing NAFTA thru. Turns out the economists didn't think of everything. :roll:

OK, so here we are sending our money to China, thinking that they will turn around and spend it with us.

Well...........if THEIR product is cheaper (which is why we bought their product to start with) then why would they turn around and spend their money on a higher priced product from us? :???: :???: