Packerland, "There's where we differ. You see it as selling our soul. I see it as doing only as much as is necessary to gain access to the world's markets."
I'll agree with you there. I think we've given up too much for this new god named "trade". Take a look, Packerland, we've lost common sense here. The Mexican truck deal is a prime example, and there are dozens just like it. The laws the WTO ruled against as inhibitive to trade clearly were drafted as public safety and environmental protection laws with no other agendas. Absolutley positively no doubt about it. Yet, under the virtual unlimited definitions of trade barriers, least restrictive to trade, etc... afforded to the WTO, they qualify as trade laws and thus we have to change them or pay. Now come on, does this make any sense? Really, does it?
I can see forming a trade agreement with other nations where there are actual penalties for non-compliance. But when the definitions of trade are unrealisticly liberal and when trade automatically trumps safety, environment protection, cultural differences, etc.... things are simply out of control and the cinch needs tightened.