|
Enforcement vs. Protectionism narrative |
|
|
|
|
Written by Stumo
|
|
Friday, 26 June 2009 |
|
There are rules in existing trade agreements. Many other countries flaunt those rules, and China may be first among them, at least in economic effect. China acceded to the WTO but has not lived up to its obligations. Obama's USTR is being more aggressive on enforcement at this stage, as was promised to CPA in a meeting.
If we see a bunch of enforcement actions, the wacko free traders will call it a rise in protectionism. Enforcement will be equated to protectionism. It does not make sense, but it will have traction in wacko free trader circles.
This article is a case in point.
Many enforcement actions are needed to ensure compliance and to help straighten out the global trading system. It will be uncomfortable for the kum-ba-ya free trade win-win types. But violations need to be eliminated to make any trading system work.
Just to be clear, enforcement alone is not enough. But it is a necessary part of trade reform.
Trackback(0)
 |
|
In the news
|
This is the video for the October 2, 2008 press conference announcing the recipe for "Fixing America's Economy."
|
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10412
In it, Mr. Immelt makes some statements that seem to indicate a realization that GE has to see itself as an American firm and reinvest in manufacturing here. He mentions concern about rising 'protectionism' as well as how 57% of GE revenue is outside the US - but he did not say how much is exported from the US.
In any case - some hopeful comments, but ALWAYS remember the facts when someone worries about the rising PROTECTIONIST. With trade deficits of over $700B and having sustained 20+ years of huge trade deficits, and a complete obliteration of our manufacturing and farming industries - can we REALLY say that we are protectionist? In words only.