• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With the U.S. Going Rogue, World Fumbles for New Trade Consensus

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,313
Reaction score
82,703
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With the U.S. Going Rogue, World Fumbles for New Trade Consensus

By Andrew Mayeda and Charlie Devereux
December 9, 2017

Trade ministers will meet in Argentina with one of the traditional defenders of free markets, the U.S., questioning the benefits of the international rules it helped to forge. “Without U.S. leadership for a positive agenda, there is a clear risk that energies of WTO members could dissipate across the fragmented set of issues and that few policy proposals will advance to conclusion,” Douglas Lippoldt, chief trade economist at HSBC, said in a research note. “The U.S. is holding the WTO hostage without really stating its demands,” said Caroline Freund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s dangerous, because the dispute resolution system is one of the parts of the WTO that’s actually working.” The WTO meeting may reveal how serious the U.S. is in acting on Trump’s tough trade talk, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush. “This is a big moment,” said Holtz-Eakin. “This will be the first time Lighthizer sits down with a lot of his counterparts.”

China’s Commerce Minister Zhong Shan, Japanese Trade Minister Hiroshige Seko and European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom are among those expected to attend the meeting, which runs Dec. 10-13. Former Argentine Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra, who is chairing the meeting, said her priority is to get member countries to acknowledge that the WTO, in spite of its imperfections, is needed to enable global trade. Any further agreements on specific topics would be an added bonus, she said in an interview. “If we manage to emerge from this meeting with a pledge for a strengthened system, then that in itself will be a great success,” Malcorra said. “It’s not so long ago that there were people who thought the system was collapsing.”
Click to expand...

In the absence of traditional US trade leadership, other major trading players such as China and the EU will only be too happy fill the leadership vacuum.
 
The US is not "going rogue". Instead of 12 countries in a batch, we are addressing each one individually. The group trade idea is problematic because when one cheats it's difficult to fix because whatever you do affects the other 11.

I'd say we are getting more realistic in our desire for fair and honest trade.
 
chuckiechan said:
The US is not "going rogue". Instead of 12 countries in a batch, we are addressing each one individually. The group trade idea is problematic because when one cheats it's difficult to fix because whatever you do affects the other 11.

I'd say we are getting more realistic in our desire for fair and honest trade.
Click to expand...

We should get more realistic about what's best for our country and worry about the rest only when it's best for our country.
 
jimbo said:
We should get more realistic about what's best for our country and worry about the rest only when it's best for our country.
Click to expand...

By pulling out of the TPP, the US has lost a lot of leverage and trade negotiations with China.
 
chuckiechan said:
Trade, particularly fair trade, is very important to the country.
Click to expand...

Trade is important to the country. Trade on somebody else's terms may not be.

Fair trade is different issue. If I agree to sell my widget for a buck, and you agree to buy my widget for a buck, that's fair. If a third party decides you should pay 2 bucks then we no longer have fair.
 
jimbo said:
Trade is important to the country. Trade on somebody else's terms may not be.

Fair trade is different issue. If I agree to sell my widget for a buck, and you agree to buy my widget for a buck, that's fair. If a third party decides you should pay 2 bucks then we no longer have fair.
Click to expand...

The system was never intended to be fair, by design.
 
Fenton Lum said:
The system was never intended to be fair, by design.
Click to expand...

Which is why we should worry about our interests first. If my interest happens to coincide with yours, then we have a win win.
 
jimbo said:
Which is why we should worry about our interests first. If my interest happens to coincide with yours, then we have a win win.
Click to expand...

Pfffffffffffffffffffft, sure, if the interests of one cabal of the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class happens to coincide with the interests of another cabal of the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class, they have a win win and the people get what they always get, hosed. And they have no compunctions about aligning with Saddam, the Taliban, Osama, ISIS, al Qaida, al Nusra, communists or Saudi Wahabists; do it all the time, doing such as we type.
 
jimbo said:
Trade is important to the country. Trade on somebody else's terms may not be.

Fair trade is different issue. If I agree to sell my widget for a buck, and you agree to buy my widget for a buck, that's fair. If a third party decides you should pay 2 bucks then we no longer have fair.
Click to expand...

More like “you can by mine in a cardboard box for a dollar, but you must sell yours wrapped in gold foil and in a mahogany box for twenty-five”
 
The US government hasn't been so isolationist/nationalist inclined since Woodrow Wilson.

Stayed that way until WWII woke America up from the doldrums.

In this age of global economics, other nations and alliances (EU, BRICS) will gladly assume trade leadership.
 
What's with the "US Going Rogue", the US has always been Rogue?

The US has also NEVER been about fair trade. It's always been about stealing others wealth thru domination, just as the Brits/French/Dutch/Germans/... did before them.
 
Rogue Valley said:
With the U.S. Going Rogue, World Fumbles for New Trade Consensus



In the absence of traditional US trade leadership, other major trading players such as China and the EU will only be too happy fill the leadership vacuum.
Click to expand...

I live and work in China making a good living putting a nice face on industry here. What I have learned here is that free trade to the Chinese means China will do what it wants, when it wants, to whomever it wants. Free trade does not mean unfair trade, and that is what we have. Calling demands for fair trade isolationism is a cheap shot sent out with no deep thought. Concentrating more on our original and founding principles of keeping the sea and air free for commerce and removing the shackles of shady alliances that we have allowed over the last century is not isolationism. Getting back to business and trading with the world, and not getting into fights that other nations pick, especially in Europe, should be our focus. If that is rogue, then call me Caligula.
 
Last edited:
Rogue Valley said:
With the U.S. Going Rogue, World Fumbles for New Trade Consensus



In the absence of traditional US trade leadership, other major trading players such as China and the EU will only be too happy fill the leadership vacuum.
Click to expand...
Who needs a new trade consensus? The trade consensus was established by the Commerce Clause in our Constitution. It says trade between the states of the United States should be free trade. Should be identical between countries of the world. Liberals lack the IQ to understand free trade so we have less of it than we should have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom