Reply With Quote
No, the agreement is that we went along with the proposed fine.
I excerpted the relevant text from your link that shows it's not a fine, but a temporary agreement. As a matter of fact, there was never a fine involved in this. Just the authorization from the WTO to Brazil to take retaliatory action in cross-markets.
Next time read up what you link.
No, the agreement is that we went along with the proposed fine.
Quote please.
Not important enough to waste my time over.
I'll give you a consolation prize and say "you win" just because it isn't that important for me to look up.
It's more of a forfeiture, tbh.
Still a W.
Well Blake, at least I said I gave up over that particular argument. Didn't keep at it. I could, but that's a bit of reading. Just don't feel like it and since most of you here see no difference in subsidies and other financial tools, why should I bother?
Really... why should I waste my time?
Why should anybody waste their time with your requests?
so apart from the market- and taking into account when it's a part of economics- what else would you lookes at to determine the negative effect of subsidies on the market?
I will agree that you and I have a different definition for subsidy. Isn't that enough? I see this as a small point not worth bothering over. I usually ask for larger issues to be shown.
I didn't say "those who use" but rather "those who refuse." I may have to go back and edit the first part you quoted since it appears I said it wrong.
However...
You obviously don't know the difference between "use" and "refuse."
--add-
OK, I change that first quote to:
I wouldn't be able to quantify that, but the market isn't all to be looked at, when it's a part of economics.
I'm sure we all talk the same language. Bottom line is we're giving them money so we can give the farm guys money. We're doing so willingly, under a mutual agreement. What you want to call it is truly irrelevant.
As I said earlier, you asked for the info, you got it. Boutons was correct.
First of all, it's hard to apply subsidies fairly. Government usually ends up making winners and losers from an otherwise fair compe ion. You are taking tax dollars out of the coffers, and redistributing wealth.
I don't know enough about economic theory to explain any of this well except that subsidies harm the natural compe iveness that spur ideas to make things better. Often, there is an attached rule that keeps new methods from occurring. The government simply has too much influence, and should stay within cons utional bounds. They subsidize some to follow certain rules, then if an upstart wanted in, they couldn't compete without the subsidies, and abiding by the same rules. Congress uses things like the Commerce clause to justify this, but who needs their meddling?
Subsidies are said to keep business alive but this was never an intent of our founding fathers, although tariffs are. The economics these guys understood still seem to outweigh our modern experts. The fact that we agree to stupid rules by joining the WTO is another example of our failing government. We need tariffs if we are not going to level the playing field in other ways.
Again, I say we simply do away with subsidies. Now that Brazil has won a case, what's next?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
This whole "free trade" thing with overseas companies is simply wrong. I'm OK with NAFTA only, and that's because they are our immediate neighbors, with no effective border. I say we tariff the out of other imports.
Let the trade wars begin.
Agree we should do away with subsidies. As I stated in the other thread, going full protectionist won't fix the economy, it will just delay the inevitable while the standard of living deteriorates in the process. But that's beyond the scope of this thread, we can discuss that there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
