Re: "Free" Trade isn't (was Re: New Melbourne trams have fewer seats..._

[Bob Tiernan <zulu@teleport.com>]

 WooF wrote:

>  David McLoughlin wrote:

 
> > I have never promoted any such thing, I have merely 
> > observed the irony of how the US goes out of its way 
> > to prevent the importation of many fine unsubsidised 
> > NZ products into the US but insists other countries
> > including NZ allow absolutely free access for
> > subsidised and protected US goods.


The European Community cut out New Zealand (and other
non-European places) when it comes to various imports
like fabulous NZ leg of lamb in order to be able to
sell meat to each other.  The EC has been far worse
regarding such imports.  


> Rather like my own experience with the North American Free Trade
> Agreement: since that thing became a ratified treaty, it's been
> substantially MORE difficult to move things (books, magazines,
> color transparencies for printing magazines) across the
> US/Canadian border than it was before.


NAFTA is a treaty but it was called an "agreement" so
as to avoid the Constitutional requirement that it
be passed by Congress with a 2/3rds majority instead
of a simple majority.  This is an outrage that was
as usual ignored by the media as well as the
American people who have been taught that the
Constitution is a "living" document so the rules
can change day to day.

NAFTA and GATT are not free or fair trade, but managed
trade.  I sympathize with those who protest them (as
well as the WTO and IMF), but they do so for the
wrong reasons, and with misguided misconceptions.

 Bob Tiernan 


  "The policy of the American government is to leave
     their citizens free, neither restraining them nor
      aiding them in their pursuits."


                          -- Thomas Jefferson