Are You A Sexpat Or Do You Ride The Backwards Morality Train?

[webfact]

WORLD ECONOMY

WTO chief outlines anti-trade trends

Wichit Chaitrong

The Nation

Lamy

BANGKOK: -- Three worldwide trends are working against trade - the slowdown in the global economy, constraints of trade finance and rise of protectionism, Pascal Lamy, director general of the World Trade Organisation, said yesterday.

Since Europe's economy has weakened, and the region re-presents about 15 per cent of the global economy, it has affected other countries too, Lamy told the seminar "High-level dialogue on |the future of the global trading system" hosted by the Commerce Ministry.

Export-led-growth countries such as China and Thailand have felt the impact, he said.

Constraints of trade finance caused by the deleveraging of banks had adversely affected small countries, especially in Africa, he said.

The rise in trade protectionism measures has hit world trade by about 1-2 per cent, he said.

While tariff rates are going down, non-tariff barriers are going up. They include anti-dumping surcharges, local content requirements and government procurement rules that give an advantage to local firms.

The dispute over the development agenda between the US and China has got the Doha Round negotiation stuck for a decade, he said.

"The US says China is a rich country with many poor people but China says it is a poor country, but with many rich people," he said.

Pongsak Assakul, chairman of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, said the most scary issue is trade protectionism. The WTO should enforce rules effectively, he said.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong said Thailand is going to join 40 countries in negotiating government procurement rules under the WTO.

Kittiratt said the rise in logistics costs is also a barrier to trade.

Thailand is trying to build rail and road connectivity with Myanmar to cut costs and save time for exports to India and Europe.

Kittiratt said he was optimistic about the conclusion of the Doha Round of trade talks.

After WTO members enjoy free trade under bilateral and regional arrangements for a while, they may be convinced of the benefits of a multilateral trade system.

Lamy said the trade talks would be concluded, but not this year.

Members are still trying to agree on those parts of the package that they can accept.

-- The Nation 2012-05-31

[Thaddeus]

That's a rather funny way of using the computer mouse.

"The US says China is a rich country with many poor people but China says it is a poor country, but with many rich people," he said.

Did all of China say that, very much doubt it.

[webfact]

WTO warns of Asian protectionism threat

BANGKOK, May 31, 2012 (AFP) - The head of the World Trade Organisation on Thursday warned against growing Asian protectionism and said the region would not escape the impact of economic woes across the globe.

WTO Director General Pascal Lamy acknowledged the region's relative resilience so far to economic turbulence in the eurozone and and continued uncertainty in the US economic outlook.

But he told the World Economic Forum on East Asia in Bangkok that it was increasingly "interconnected with the rest of the planet and I don't think this relative immunity will be forever".

"I would expect, given what is happening in other part of the world economy, this region to be more affected than it has been so far," he added.

Lamy said the "biggest risk" was protectionism, because of Asia's position as a major exporter to the rest of the world.

"The main risk is protectionism, and you know that it remains a serious risk, a growing risk," he said, adding that protectionist pressure had increased over the last six months.

"But more worryingly protectionists action have intensified, more and more governments are ceding to this pressure," he said, urging the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to step up integration to insure against external shocks.

The Bangkok summit, which began Thursday and was attended by Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi on her first trip outside her homeland in 24 years, is aimed at providing a forum for nations and business leaders to discuss issues of regional concern.

A report by the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (ESCAP) in early May said the region's growth will edge down to 6.5 percent in 2012 from 7.0 percent last year caused by troubled export markets and rising commodity prices.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2012-05-31

[mccw]

In a nut shell - the west loaned up to the eye balls and gave all the money and jobs to Asia. All at the behest of corporations so they could make fatter profits. Globalisation is the root of our problems today. The more integrated the world the less power the nation and voters- all the more power to the bankers and corporations. The countries doing the best right now are those who still maintain some national control over their economy- those doing the worst are the ones with the least. WTO is just another tool

[yoshiwara]

In a nut shell - the west loaned up to the eye balls and gave all the money and jobs to Asia. All at the behest of corporations so they could make fatter profits. Globalisation is the root of our problems today. The more integrated the world the less power the nation and voters- all the more power to the bankers and corporations. The countries doing the best right now are those who still maintain some national control over their economy- those doing the worst are the ones with the least. WTO is just another tool

What a load of unmitigated tosh. Without international trade the cost of living would go to the moon. A contribution from someone who has no understanding of economics and a laughable suggestion that an economy can be defined within national boundaries.

[mccw]

In a nut shell - the west loaned up to the eye balls and gave all the money and jobs to Asia. All at the behest of corporations so they could make fatter profits. Globalisation is the root of our problems today. The more integrated the world the less power the nation and voters- all the more power to the bankers and corporations. The countries doing the best right now are those who still maintain some national control over their economy- those doing the worst are the ones with the least. WTO is just another tool

What a load of unmitigated tosh. Without international trade the cost of living would go to the moon. A contribution from someone who has no understanding of economics and a laughable suggestion that an economy can be defined within national boundaries.

I'm not saying international trade is inherently bad you condesending eq retard. I'm saying international trade and regulation could and should be carried out in the interests of the nation and it's stability / future benefit.

[yoshiwara]

In a nut shell - the west loaned up to the eye balls and gave all the money and jobs to Asia. All at the behest of corporations so they could make fatter profits. Globalisation is the root of our problems today. The more integrated the world the less power the nation and voters- all the more power to the bankers and corporations. The countries doing the best right now are those who still maintain some national control over their economy- those doing the worst are the ones with the least. WTO is just another tool

What a load of unmitigated tosh. Without international trade the cost of living would go to the moon. A contribution from someone who has no understanding of economics and a laughable suggestion that an economy can be defined within national boundaries.

I'm not saying international trade is inherently bad you condesending eq retard. I'm saying international trade and regulation could and should be carried out in the interests of the nation and it's stability / future benefit.

'

The correct spelling of 'condescending' would help. International trade is either free trade or subject to protectionism. All countries can play that game and the end result is a contraction of trade and the increase of prices to the population at large. Lamy understands this even if you cannot.

[mccw]

Your wrong.

So many examples; but just one simple one would be:

A country produces plenty of rice to meet its populations needs at a reasonable price. But over in Arabia their is a rice shortage. So free trade means a few big rice exporters can make fat profits while the local population must endure much higher prices. Some kind of export quotas allowing trade in only surplus / maintaining a steady affordable price for locals and export the excess is good for the nation over a handful of greedy elite. This would be better for the economy as nations population would have more desposable income to buy other products and services.

So many more examples. Like thailands 51% ownership and land laws keeping prices relatively affordable, compare to free market london. Think CAP in EU is essential for food security and price stability but is a total distortion of "free market". I could go on all day.

[yoshiwara]

It looks as if you haven't studied any economics and it shows. First of all if you restrict the export of rice or tax exports then the production of rice goes down. When the level of production goes down, employment goes down and tax receipts go down. When that happens the government has to increase receipts from elsewhere and the cost of living goes up. On the other side while you are shooting yourself in the foot, countries such as Vietnam step into the breach and increase their production to satisfy export demand. As their production expands, their average cost of production decreases and now they are able to sell rice at a cheaper price even than Thailand. Since cheaper prices were/are are your objective you will no doubt dissuade import duties on the now cheaper Vietnamese rice. Consumption of Thai rice now goes down. Thai rice producers will want to reduce wages in order to compete but with the minimum wage in place they cannot, so they stop producing rice and lay off staff. Some pockets of the industry will move decisively into blackmarket operations where they can. State control of import/exports was a defining feature of the failed East European States and the theory of Socialism in One Country a critical part of the old Stalinist ideology. What bankrupt reformists the world over try to do is create islands of socialism within a world capitalist system. It cannot be done. Best Quality Thai rice has the highest reputation in the world and farmers should be encouraged to produce according to international demand and increase their profits. With increased receipts there is added tax income to spend on education, research, and cheaper imports.

Profits are key. There is no 'shortage' of rice in Saudi Arabia. There is plenty of rice in Saudi Arabia. They import it from the proceeds of selling oil. Producing and exporting what you are best at and importing other commodities is applying the law of comparative advantage. You cannot defeat the dynamics of globalisation, but you you can hobble an economy such as Thailand with old discredited protectionist dogmas. And those are peddled on this forum by those with little understanding except maybe sporting an old tattered Che T-shirt.

Edited June 2, 2012 by yoshiwara

[mccw]

Yoshi pumpkin- your arguments are so overly simplistic.

I don't advocate blanket protectionism.

It's all about striking a balance.

Economic incentives to maintain production are easily worked in; example say x tones of production must be held back for the domestic market and all above this goes for export, so still incentive to produce as much as you can.

What say you to the example of CAP in EU? Common Agricultural Policy in case your struggling. Or properly prices? Or allowing all powerful monopolies to form?

Arabs can't grow enough food so they are doing what's right for them to get it. That doesn't mean what's right for the EU is to remain dependant on oil or russian gas because right now it's cheaper than other technology. Cost and what is strategically best for long term are two very different things.

If you look at history hundreds of years of empire and development built on trade. Targeted trade in the nations interest. Not selling out your own country to a rival for a buck. This American idea of "free trade" is what has led us to the edge of the abyss. I'm sure in 50 or 100 years from now the history books will look at this period as the folly of fools, an example of how not to run shit. Kids in west will shake thier heads "what were they thinking?" while the Chinese all laughing. How they managed to turn the greatest empires in history to third world crumbling ruins of their former selves. At least no empire business could be conducted with strategic interest in mind. Another example of west folly has been not getting involved on "human rights concerns".

I'm no communist.

I believe capitalism is the natural order of things.

But nature can be manipulated to ones benifit. It depends who's benifit is intended and who has the power to manipulate.

More ways the West has screwed itself: with all the over regulation and legal on every stupid little detail for make a business and employment law, rights , benifits welfare state etc etc.

What your calling for as free trade doesn't exist- what exists is just completely the wrong balance of regulation . The current west system stifles small business; where's the free trade you talk of? It's more free in this Thailand of protectionism.

The call for "free trade" was led by and only for the benifit of corporations who have now usurped the power of the state. No free trade at all- only the freedom to make extra buck in specific areas related to their profits and be damned with the consequences.

Edited June 2, 2012 by mccw

[yoshiwara]

You failed to respond to my detailed destruction of your nonsense suggestions re rice. Better stick to the vague generalities. Easier for those with no economics background.

[highchol]

rich quotes in the opening article, thought Thailand was right up there with the best protectionist exponents to found anywhere in the world.

[mccw]

You failed to respond to my detailed destruction of your nonsense suggestions re rice. Better stick to the vague generalities. Easier for those with no economics background.

It's you who fail to respond to my other examples of benificial non "free market" policies.

I showed in my opening paragraph of previous reply how your text book free market dogma is easily over come.

It's OK, I understand that for some it's hard to admit defeat. I was supprised you gave up the debate and resorted to bla bla nothing's so quickly though

Edited June 3, 2012 by mccw