Conference 7.286::digital

    
>           Coalition supporting GATT urges Congressional approval
>   
>        A coalition of corporate supporters -- including Digital -- is 
>   sponsoring a grassroots campaign aimed at passage of a new General 
>   Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by Congress before the end of the 
>   year.

IMO The loss to the US in Tarrif $ would be made up by ???

Do the name INCOME TAX mean anything to ya

Lee

    re .1:
    
    The theory is that the reduction in tariffs causes a general increase
    in trade, boosting business revenues (thus increasing tax revenues from
    business without increasing the tax rate) and lowering consumer costs. 
    Both political parties in the U.S. are split on whether this is
    actually the case, and if you get three economists in a room you'll get
    a minimum of 4 opinions on it.
    
    /Butch

    >  Employees are encouraged to communicate *their own* views on the
    >  GATT agreement directly to their local Congressional representatives.
    
    Do your own research.  There are reasons to oppose GATT, which it is
    not in DEC's best corporate interest to point out, nor in DEC's best
    corporate interest for me to enumerate here, so I won't.

    Does anybody know where one can get an impartial write on GATT
    Agreement?
    
    rww
    

    
.0>  Employees are encouraged to communicate *their own* views on the
.0>  GATT agreement directly to their local Congressional representatives.
    
.3>                         There are reasons to oppose GATT, which it is
.3>  not in DEC's best corporate interest to point out, nor in DEC's best
.3>  corporate interest for me to enumerate here, so I won't.
    
    
    The corporation has solicited employees to communicate personal views
    on GATT to congressional representatives.
    
    Therefore, it is in the corporation's interest, at least in regard to
    responding to that solicitation, that a free and vigorous discussion on
    GATT take place, including pros and cons from a personal as well as
    corporate perspective.
    

I just called the 800 number listed in the base note.  In less than two minutes
I supplied the information necessary for the letters to be sent.  I encourage others 
to do so.

Being a free trader at heart, I am all for the GATT agreement.  I can't really
think of reasons that one wouldn't be for the agreement except if one worked in
an inefficient industry that needs tariff protection to remain in business.

I also dislike the idea of maintaining the large staff of beauracrats in Washington
whose job it is to decide how much of a particular commodity each country may 
export to this country each year and what the appropriate tariff level should be.

Let businesses manage trade, not beauracrats.

Ken

    i've struggled in the past with issue of "Free" trade... it's a rather
    seductive notion however having said this, I become frightened by the
    prospects of having secret councils (WTO) determine the applicability
    of our laws that are unique to each country.. for example, it is
    possible that the WTO would consider our rather rigid rules regarding
    the use of pesticides on fruit and vegetables , ECOLI (sp?) bacteria in
    meat products etc.. as violations of the GATT treaty in that it may be
    construed as prejudicial to one or more of the 140 something member
    nations... and overruled. In fact, this has been challenged under the 
    US and Canada free trade agreement a few years ago when Canadian beef
    was found to contain high levels of ECOLI bacteria with the result
    being that the US was fined for rejecting Canadian beef for what they
    considered acceptable levels of ECOLI .. this beef was part of the mix
    that was used by the Jack in the Box chain that caused quite a scare a
    couple of years ago..
    
    so there are some very significant issues regarding sovereignty..
    local, state, and federal laws become subject to interpretation by
    the secret tribunals (such as the WTO) and hence can be superceded by
    the world trade courts (created by gatt)...
    
    And if down the road the US determines that the price of GATT was too
    high it becomes nearly impossible to pull out since our economy will
    have gotten inextricably intertwined with that of the other member
    nations..  The Economist had some interesting articles regarding these
    issues during the last couple of months....Eye opening reading I
    thought..  I for one can't seem to get to the point where I am willing
    to turn over issues such as pesticide/bacteria content in foodstuffs over 
    to organizations who operate in secret.. 
    
    /ray

    re. .7
    
    Well said.  I agree in principal with GATT if the sovereign issues did
    not arise.  As I understand it, we would abdicate our US authority over
    to the WTO - which is something I will not accept.
    
    

>Being a free trader at heart, I am all for the GATT agreement.  I can't really
>think of reasons that one wouldn't be for the agreement except if one worked in
>an inefficient industry that needs tariff protection to remain in business.

Have you actually read it?   There seem to other things /side-affects /etc
that lead me to believe that GATT <> good.  From watching various congress
critters talk (pro and con), it seems most of them have not read it either
(I have not).  Isn't it a multiple-thousand page document?  And only recently
became available to them (like last 2 months?)?

-Joe

RE: .10

I have not read the document which is probably multiple thousands of pages.

I have read alot of different articles, etc. that talk about it.

It seems the main opposition to the agreement is along the lines proposed
earlier:  Loss of sovereignty.

My gut reaction is that this is a red herring by politicians who foresee, 
rightly so, a reduction in the need for the tremendous beauracracy that has
grown to "manage" trade and therefore a loss in power.

RE:earlier reply
I am willing to accept pesticide/bacteria regulations for food that are 
agreed to by 120 countries and not only devised by the U.S. given that we 
also gain greater and fairer access to world markets.  

I view GATT as creating standardization in the world trade regulations and
markets.  An analogy might be the standardization (trend toward openness) that 
is occurring in the computer industry.  While it has made competition much 
greater and forced structural changes it has been a tremendous benefit for 
consumers and the industry is arguably much more efficient.

Then again, we can try to hold on to the proprietary nature of the current 
trade regulations...

Ken

    I heard a radio report, that the treaty is over 20,000 pages in length
    and that if the books binding it were placed on top of each other, they
    would be over 8 feet in height.  Don't know how accurate the media is,
    but I probably won't read it all.

Here's an interesting "prescription" from Herman Daly who just retired
as head of the World Bank.

  Daly's fourth suggestion: Move away from the ideology of free trade 
  and free capital mobility and toward national production for internal 
  markets.  "The royal road to development...is thought to be the 
  unrelenting conquest of each nation's market by all other nations.... 
  It is necessary to remind ourselves that the World Bank exists to 
  serve the interests of...nation-states.  It has no charter to serve 
  the cosmopolitan vision...of converting many relatively independent 
  national economies into one..., upon which the weakened nations 
  depend for even basic survival."

  Globalizing the economy means erasing much of the power of national 
  governments to carry out policies for the common good.  Any 
  protection of local businesses, of workers, of communities, or of the 
  environment can be struck down as a restraint of trade--as if trade 
  were the higherst value, to which all other values must be 
  sacrificed.  "Take it as a prediction," said Daly.  "Ten years from 
  now the buzzwords will be 'renationalization of capital' and 
  'community rooting of capital.'"

Having just negotiated a GATT treaty in good faith, it would probably do
more harm than good for Congress to reject it.  But there are some very
sound reasons to question the ideology of "free trade" at any cost.

- Peter

Only 20,000 pages?

Is this available online?  Is it public domain?  Is it on CD-ROM?

A CD-ROM of the GATT agreement would b most usefull.

Harry.

    A couple of answers to questions posed:
    
    1. The new Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, speaking on CSPAN
    yesterday, noted the terms of GATT will lose the USA '...ZERO
    SOVERNTY'... and has other safeguards built in to assure if
    US policy changes it can be overridden. He was very confident
    and in favor of GATT.
    
    2. GATT can be accessed via MOSAIC or LYNX at:
    
    	GOPHER://cyfer.esusda.gov/11/ace/policy/gatt
    
    Personally I am in favor of GATT and did use the 1-800 number
    to send letters to my representatives in Congress.
    
    Regards,
    
    Tony
    

    re .10
    
    i do not want others forming my country's policy toward acceptable use
    of pecticides on food etc.. nor do i want them dictating foreign
    policy... all this in the name of commerce mind you.. i barely trust
    our own government in this regard... no thanks.. free trade is one of
    those seductive ideas as i said, i'm in agreement with it in principle
    but am dead set against having large multi-national bureaucracies
    determining soveriegn issues that me and my country.. absolutely not..
    
    this agreement would be fantastic for the top 1% of the world
    population but would be seriously destabilizing for the rest...
    
    /ray.
    

re: .14

>    1. The new Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, speaking on CSPAN
>    yesterday, noted the terms of GATT will lose the USA '...ZERO
>    SOVERNTY'... and has other safeguards built in to assure if
>    US policy changes it can be overridden. He was very confident
>    and in favor of GATT.
    
As much as I tend to favor free trade, I must admit to being skeptical of
anything that Newt Gingrich likes. :-)

-Hal

    
    
    Gingrich has publicly admitted to not having read the 20,000 + page document
    ... so I'm wary of his assessment of it.. 
    
    again, as i stated earlier, case law exists whereas the US and Canada
    free trade agreement (1988) whereby tainted meat products were allowed
    to enter our country in direct defiance of FDA standards .. this was
    allowed because Canada protested to one of the dispute settlement
    panels established to safeguard the "spirit" of the agreement and they
    won... this meat was part of the lot that the Jack in the Box food chain 
    served to its customers a couple of years ago.. killing a few dozen 
    people in the process... It's exactly this sort of thing that speaks
    volumes as to the very negative side effects of just such agreements... 
    
    

    
    I heard that the tainted BK meat came from a packer in metro Los Angeles.
    
    <

    So far most free trade agreements have not been beneficial to the US,
    predominately because our politicians can't seem to negotiate, nor can
    we enforce them.  Our biggest deficits are with Japan and China. 
    China, one of the last great commie countries, is well known for its
    lovely human rights record and requirements that foreign industry have
    a majority Chinese partner.  Most people are well aware of Japan's
    trade policies, subsidization of industry, etc.
    
    Canadians, for the most part, believe they got soaked in the trade
    agreements with the US.  Many blame that agreement on their declining
    lifestyle and rising deficits.
    
    Our free trade agreement (and free is the word!) 936, ie: Reagan's
    "Caribbean Initiative", resulted in many companies fleeing to the
    Caribbean basin.  Examples are Dexter shoes, Merk (every pharmaceutical
    company has a plant in Puerto Rico), Digital, some of American Airline's 
    data processing, etc.  Companies can import their goods tax-free to the
    US then return the profits on-shore, also tax-free.  This was done out
    of Mr. Reagan's "concern" for our neighbors down there, not the large
    PAC donations from the drug and other companies that fled south.
    
    The push to normalize relations with Vietnam suddenly didn't come from
    a heart-felt desire to put our arm around another communist country,
    especially one that so many of us gave so much to.  Cam Ranh Bay and
    accompanying area is arguably one of the world's largest offshore oil
    fields.  Texaco, Marathon, and most other oil companies had rigs there
    before it all crashed.  This sudden effort is being sold to us as
    something totally different, however.
    
    Please notice that no one is concerned about free trade with Cuba, our
    neighbor only 90 miles south.  Cuba has a much better human rights
    record than China, is far closer, shares a common language with a big
    portion of America, as well as a common history...and doesn't have poop
    anybody wants.
    
    Every free trade agreement I've ever seen was started by someone with a
    politician in their pocket and an eye towards making some serious cash
    for themselves, regardless the cost to the rest of the country.  The
    challenge has, apparently, been how to make it palatable (ie: "package
    it") to the populace.
    
    As a side note: this country was originally funded by tariffs and
    excise taxes...completely.  There was a big stink over whether an
    income tax was constitutional...and still is, in some areas.  When all
    this wonderful "free" trade (free, meaning no/lower excise/tariffs),
    who will make up the shortfall?
    
    When the firm employing a factory worker here @$8.50/hr to make a
    widget (+healthcare, unemployment, EPA, etc.) has to compete in the
    same market with a firm in Slombovia employing a factory worker @
    $8.50/week (no healthcare, unemployment, forget pollution control, no
    OSHA, no EPA), what do you think happens?
    
    Free trade, like communism, is an admirable thing that we all should
    strive for. In reality, free trade, like communism, is a thing that
    doesn't exist in nature...just like a free lunch.
    
    						Tex (on his lunch hour)

    ...and before the pundits begin, having lived in Puerto Rico I'm
    perfectly aware of the plant closings there (and across the rest of the
    world, also).

I suspect that GATT is mostly designed to make more money for U.S. companies,
otherwise why would any politician (almost all of whom, we know, are paid for 
by some industry PAC or another -except for (Bill?) Archer of Texas, my Dad 
told me last night) support it?

Bruce

    Herman Daly probably studied the effects of the NAFTA agreement on
    Canada (re. note 3510.12).
    Canada has come under a relentless attack by industry lobbys in the US
    who have used any tactics possible to prevent competition from Canadian
    companies in their patch. Usually the cry is that Canada subsidizes
    these companies - wittness the "shakes & shingles" and
    "stumpage"disputes in the lumber sector.
    
    Canadians are waiting for more such cries of "subsidy!" and �nfair
    competition!" and "not a level playing field!" on the basis that we
    have a public health insurance system here which puts less burden on
    private companies to pay for employees' healthcare provisions. GM
    (Canada), IBM (Canada), Dupont (Canada) are all "unfairly subsidised"
    in this way.
    
    Are Canadians willing to sacrifice their heslth-care system on the
    altar of GATT or any other "free trade" deal? No way in hell!
    
    If you look at the way the EC has implemented its trading system among
    menber states you'll notice that it has gone far beyond the notion of
    simply exchange of goods. It has also implemented policies liberalizing
    the flow of labour among EC members, a social charter, labour codes to
    protect workers, and so forth in the realization that "free trade"
    alone would not cut it. Not that the EC is a model for everything done
    well - far from it; look at Bosnia! - but at least they were wise
    enough to look beyond trade/profit and put emphasis on the 'C' in EC.
    
    Maybe Herman Daly had a look at the EC model prior to making his
    suggestions.
    
    Mike
    

    Politicians support GATT because they anticipate it will make more
    money for them.  The top politicians anticipate that if they can play
    at the single world government they can have unlimited money and power. 
    I would doubt the politicians care about the U.S. companies.
    
    

    > So far most free trade agreements have not been beneficial to the US,
    
    The GATT has been in existence since the immediate aftermath of WWII.
    The Uruguay round which was signed a year ago and is now in the process
    of ratification by most signatories is the 9th in the series.
    
    The previous 8 rounds of the GATT have been the means by which the free
    world developed economic trading relationships which have spawned the
    development and enrichment of more countries and more individuals than
    any other achievement in the history of the world.
    
    I'd say the US, and the world, have done VERY WELL by many free trade 
    agreements.
    
    DougO

    As an ardent supported of free trade, I wonder why it has to be
    implemented by a layer of parasitic bureaucrats.
    
    I'm also suspicious of some of the 'amendments' that have been snuck
    into this treaty.
    
    For instance:
    
    Section 742 requires all Americans to register their children with
    the government at birth. 
    
    What's it got to do with trade ?
    
    Section 749 provides for a bail-out of the TWA pension plan.
    
    What's it got to do with trade ?
    
    
    Section 745 extends authority to the government to renege on the terms
    of U.S. Savings bonds and set new return amounts.
    
    What's it got to do with trade ?
    
    Just a few questions.
    
    Publius
    

    
    
    >I'm also suspicious of some of the 'amendments' that have been snuck
    >into this treaty.
    
    >	instances deleted...
    
    
    	Those aren't amendments to the GATT treaty. There are amendments to
    the bill which ratifies GATT. Congress is sticking on a million riders
    that wouldn't stand a chance of passing on their own. That's SOP in
    congress and has been for years. Has nothing to do with GATT, other than
    it is the next 'wagon' leaving town.... :-(
    
    JimH
    
    

re: a few back

Puerto Rico had Dexter shoes and the pharmaceuticals long before Regan was 
president. I lived there six years (4 with DEC). There were large tax 
incentives to be there, and that is why DEC was there. 

- John 

>>    	Those aren't amendments to the GATT treaty. There are amendments to
>>    the bill which ratifies GATT. Congress is sticking on a million riders
>>    that wouldn't stand a chance of passing on their own. That's SOP in
>>    congress and has been for years. Has nothing to do with GATT, other than
>>    it is the next 'wagon' leaving town.... :-(
    
This is a real good reason for everyone to call and wire their
representitives and congresspersons and ask them to kill the proposal.
I don't have any real heartburn with it alone, though I don't necessarily
agree completely with it. But with all the extra baggage, it stinks.

    
    

    re: .28

    One free trade agreement has been very beneficial to the US.  This is
    the one in the Constitution which states that there is free trade
    between the individual states.  It's interesting to compare the length
    of this agreement with the length of all the other free trade
    agreements.
    
                                August G. Reinig

   A number of noters have singled out the issue of sovereignty.  I'd like 
   to offer a simple summary way of thinking about it.
   
   1.  GATT is a system of trading rules intended to promote trade between 
       countries.  As in almost every system of rules, there is a mechanism 
       for considering and resolving disputes about the interpretation and     
       application of the rules.  
   
   2.  Under current GATT rules, when a dispute arises, a panel is 
       established.  This panel considers the competing arguments, and 
       issues a report with a decision on the consistency of the challenged 
       rule/pracice with the relevant GATT rules.  If the party found to     
       be acting contrary to GATT rules accepts the panel's decision and 
       makes corresponding changes in its rules/practice, the case is 
       finished.  But if that party rejects the panel's decision, the case 
       is also finished.  This obviously makes GATT panel decisions totally     
       unenforceable.  
   
   3.  Three of the principal U.S. objectives in the Uruguay Round were to: 
       (a) expand the coverage of existing rules (eg, non-discrimination 
       requirements applying to more government purchases; (b) develop new 
       rules (eg, rules covering trade in services and intellectual 
       property); and (c) create a credible system to enforce these     
       rules.  By doing the last thing, the U.S. would address one of the 
       most powerful objections long-leveled by U.S. critics of the GATT 
       trading system, namely, that GATT rules are unenforceable.
   
   4.  The Uruguay Round GATT Agreement makes a fundamental change in the 
       dispute settlement mechanism described in par. 2.  A party can 
       still reject the panel's decision and recommendations.  But now, 
       the WTO will have a recourse.  That recourse is not to force any 
       change in the losing party's condemned rules or practices.  Rather,     
       the WTO will be able to demand that the country rejecting the 
       decision make tariff concessions (in any product category the party 
       chooses) whose calculated trade value will equal the calculated trade 
       value of the condemned practice.  In short, the WTO cannot override 
       the losing party's sovereignty and force a change in law or practice.  
       But it can require that "damages" be paid in the form of tariff 
       concessions.  For example, the WTO condemns U.S. pesticide/bacteria 
       regulations; the U.S. keeps them unchanged, but reduces the import 
       tariff on sugar by X%).
   
   5.  From a U.S. standpoint, does it make sense to abandon the free trade 
       system (not a far-fetched implication of rejecting this agreement) 
       over this?  Our free-trade posture isn't pure, but it's strong enough
       to feel comfortable with this new system.  The U.S. won't lose 
       complete and final authority to set and implement laws; it's just     
       that there may be a tariff price for refusing to modify our laws     
       according to a WTO panel decision.
   
   6.  From Digital's standpoint, expanding trade opportunities is clearly a 
       good thing for us.  This agreement will be good for us, and we 
       certainly have nothing to fear from the WTO's expanded dispute 
       settlement authority.  
   
   /Tom
  

                           
    The following are texts of letters generated by calling 1.800.282.GATT
    (Apologies for so much text in this and preceding note.)
    
    /Tom
    
    
    SENATE 1
    
    I am writing to urge you to vote for the GATT budget waiver and the 
    GATT implementing bill when the Senate returns to Washington on 
    December 1st.
    
    The GATT agreement will boost U.S. exports, the U.S. economy, and U.S. 
    employment.  It will open new export markets for U.S. products, 
    increase U.S. GDP by between $100 and $200 billion a year after full 
    implementation, and create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage, 
    high-skill U.S. jobs.
    
    The GATT agreement will help, not hinder, deficit reduction -- any 
    losses in tariff revenue will be more than offset by revenue gains from 
    increased U.S. economic activity.
    
    It is important that Congress act this year to lock in these gains for 
    the U.S. economy.  I urge you to vote yes on GATT.
    
    SENATE 2
    
    Please vote for the GATT budget waiver and the GATT implementing bill 
    when the Senate returns to Washington on December 1st.
    
    The GATT agreement is expected to boost our domestic economy by $200 
    billion a year, create 1.4 million jobs and result in over $60 billion 
    in deficit reduction in the next 10 years.  If GATT is not passed this 
    year, all of these gains and over 50 years of U.S. world economic 
    leadership could be lost.
    
    I am counting on you to vote yes on GATT.
    
    SENATE 3
    
    It is extremely important that the Senate approve the GATT budget 
    waiver and the pass the GATT implementing bill when it returns to 
    Washington later this year.
    
    As the world's number one exporter, the United States is in the best 
    position to take advantage of the trade liberalization resulting from 
    the GATT agreement.  In 1992, the United States accounted for almost 
    12% of all world exports.  The U.S. market is already very open to 
    imports, and the GATT agreement will help level the playing field for 
    our exports.
    
    Increased exports means more high-paying jobs here at home.  One in six 
    U.S. manufacturing jobs is already directly or indirectly related to 
    exports -- and these are jobs that pay considerably more than the 
    average U.S. wage. Implementation of the GATT agreement will spur even 
    more export-related job creation.
    
    A vote against the budget waiver is not just a procedural vote; it is a 
    vote against our national interest.  I hope that you will support the 
    waiver and this historic trade agreement.
    
    SENATE 4
    
    I am writing to urge you to approve the GATT budget waiver and to vote 
    for the GATT implementing bill when the Senate returns to Washington on 
    December 1st.
    
    	At stake is a trade agreement that will:
    
    	-  boost our domestic economy by $200 billion a year
    	-  create 1.4 million jobs
    	-  and result in over $60 billion in deficit reduction 
    	   in the next 10 years.
    
    The GATT agreement will help, not hinder, deficit reduction -- any 
    losses in tariff revenue will be more than offset by revenue gains from 
    increased U.S. economic activity.
    
    The United States cannot afford to delay implementation of this 
    historic agreement.  I hope that I can count on your support.
    
    HOUSE 1
    
    I am writing to urge you to support passage of the GATT implementing 
    bill when Congress votes on it later this year.
    
    American economic growth and job creation depend on the expansion of 
    international trade and investment.  Over the last five years, U.S. 
    exports accounted for half of total U.S. economic growth.  The GATT 
    agreement would cut tariffs and non-tariff barriers, provide greater 
    protection for intellectual property, strengthen GATT rules and, in 
    short, make it easier for the United States to export goods and 
    services to our trading partners.  This in turn spurs economic growth, 
    job creation and increased consumer choice.
    
    It is important that Congress act this year to lock in these gains for 
    the U.S. economy.  I urge you to vote yes on GATT.
    
    HOUSE 2
    
    Please support the GATT implementing bill when Congress returns to 
    Washington on November 29th.
    
    The GATT agreement is expected to boost our domestic economy by $200 
    billion a year, create 1.4 million jobs an result in over $60 billion 
    in deficit reduction in the next 10 years.
    
    If GATT is not passed this year, all of these gains and over 54 years 
    of U.S. world economic leadership could be lost.
    
    I am counting on you to vote yes on GATT.
    
    HOUSE 3
    
    It is extremely important that Congress pass the GATT implementing bill 
    when it returns to Washington later this year.
    
    As the world's number one exporter, the United States is in the best 
    position to take advantage of the trade liberalization resulting from 
    the GATT agreement.  In 1992, the United States accounted for almost 
    12% of all world exports.  The U.S. market is already very open to 
    imports, and the GATT agreement will help level the playing field for 
    our exports.
    
    And, increased exports means more high-paying jobs here at home.  One 
    in six U.S. manufacturing jobs is already directly or indirectly 
    related to exports -- and these are jobs that pay considerably more 
    than the average U.S. wage.  Implementation of the GATT agreement will 
    spur even more export-related job creation.
    
    Needless to say, the GATT agreement is extremely import to our nation's 
    long term economic health.  I hope that you will support passage of the 
    implementing legislation.
    
    HOUSE 4
    
    I am writing to urge you to support passage of the GATT implementing 
    bill when Congress votes on it on November 29th.
    
    	At stake is a trade agreement that will:
    
    	-  boost our domestic economy by $200 billion a year
    	-  create 1.4 million jobs
    	-  and result in over $60 billion in deficit reduction 
    	   in the next 10 years.
    
    The United States cannot afford to delay implementation of this 
    historic agreement.  I hope that I can count on your support.
    

    1.  What is the WTO's enforcement mechanism by which they can "require"
    	a country to reduce a tariff?
    
    2.	What if a country does something not related to trade directly,
    	but which other countries want to "punish" by restricting trade?
    	For example, one might wish to ban all seafood imports from
    	Norway until they stop killing whales in violation of
    	international agreement.  In such a situation could Norway
    	then appeal to the WTO that the countries banning the imports
    	reduce other tariffs in compensation?

    Re .33 -
    
    1.  The prevailing country would be authorized to raise countervailing
        tariffs against imports from the losing country.  
    
    2.  Norway could appeal, and it would win (given your facts that
        include no justification within GATT rules for the import ban).
        The losing country would have the choice of dropping its ban 
        or giving trade concessions to Norway in other areas.  
    
    Tom  

    
     Oh, that the world were this simple:
    
    	As there are claims (and counter-claims) regarding changes in
        employment, income, tax revenue to the general treasurey, etc. 
        that would be caused by GATT, why not:
    
    	1. Set up measurment processes for monitoring actual changes
           (# and characteristics of persons employed, compensation levels, 
           gains/losses in tax revenue, etc.) to be tracked over a period 
           of time for a set of different "industries" and for the population 
           as a whole.
    
    	2. Make the judgement criteria public and establish and publish 
           base-line numbers/trends.
    
    	3. Approve GATT as a stepped "phase-in" process, to continue 
           as long at actual measurements (of those economic sectors
           that have been "phased in") show improvement in employment 
           oportunities, revenue, 'average wealth', etc. compared with
    	   those sectors not yet "phased in" (control group).
    
    	3. If actual measurments fail to show improvments in those
    	   industries that are phased-in (vs those that have not been)
           the agreement would be void.
    
    	4. If actual measurements are ambigous, then the treaty is
           subject to revision or rejection (no reason to have it if
           it's not helping!)

    The term "free trade" does not seem to apply to the GATT.  "Free Trade"
    would be a system, where each country is free to sell its products to
    any other country.  The buying country would be free to decline to
    purchase or say I will only purchase if this tax(tariff) is applied to
    your sales price.  In a "free trade" situation, I can decline to pay
    the tax or add a tax to the other country's product.  Each country is
    free to chart its own course.  Anything that takes away from my
    country's ability to make unilateral decisions takes away from my
    country's sovreignty.  It is also a restriction of "free trade".
    
    It appears that the real problem with "free trade" is the fear that the
    competition  will hurt U.S. businesses.  I don't share that fear, but I
    do fear abdicating my political sovreignty.

>    The term "free trade" does not seem to apply to the GATT.  "Free Trade"
>    would be a system, where each country is free to sell its products to
>    any other country.  The buying country would be free to decline to
>    purchase or say I will only purchase if this tax(tariff) is applied to
>    your sales price.  In a "free trade" situation, I can decline to pay
>    the tax or add a tax to the other country's product.  Each country is
>    free to chart its own course.  Anything that takes away from my
>    country's ability to make unilateral decisions takes away from my
>    country's sovreignty.  It is also a restriction of "free trade".
 
      This is a complete misunderstanding of the term 'free trade'.
    Although generally expressed in terms of free trade between nations,
    'trade' actually takes place between individuals, or groups of
    individuals, within those nations. In a real 'free trade situation',
    there are no taxes _OR SUBSIDIES_; the cost of goods and services is
    what it costs to produce them, plus the suppliers profit. No individual
    would say, as you did, "I will only purchase if this tax(tariff) is
    added to your sales price" (if *you* would, please let me know your
    address, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you 8*)). That sort of
    requirement is imposed by governments, not by those actually conducting
    the trade. Free competition between suppliers should keep the profits from
    becoming excessive; cartels and monopolies are as much the enemies of free
    trade as government interference. *ALL* arbitrary taxes, tariffs and
    subsidies distort the market. This is not to say that this is always a bad
    thing, a totally free market is not necessarily the best way to run things.
    But it *ALWAYS* occurs; and if you don't take that into account when
    they are applied, then you can end up by not merely failing to produce
    the desired effect, but actually promoting undesireable behaviour.
      Such distortions produce inefficiencies, and the greater the distortion
    the less efficiently the economy operates. An extreme case was the Soviet
    economy; for example, bread was heavily subsidised. Sounds like a good
    thing, putting cheap food in the mouths of the people and all that? Not
    when the bread price became so low that it makes sense to feed it to cattle
    because it cost less than cattle food, which is what actually happened.
      This sort of thing wastes resources, because the bread takes
    more input to produce than the cattle feed. It doesn't help the people
    get more bread, because production gets diverted into such inappropriate
    uses, creating shortages. It costs a fortune in subsidies, the
    increased consumption attracting more subsidy, and it tends to lead to
    more restrictive legislation, like new laws and ordinances on what you
    are allowed to do with bread. Eventually, when such interferences with
    the economy become sufficiently widespread, the whole edifice becomes
    unsupportable. 
               
    Ken

                            FREE TRADE?

o .37 starts with an excellent and obvious point. Calling GATT a "free trade"
      agreement is oxymoronic. How can establishing a new and all powerful,
      level of WORLD bureaucracy to enforce a 200,000 plus document of rules 
      and restrictions be called Free Trade?

      If you think the U.S. Federal bureaucracy is bloated and unresponsive
      can you imagine how accomodating the World Trade Council will be?

      One is not free to do anything but comply.
      
                            MORE/BETTER JOBS?

o     I have already seen experienced, competent, motivated "ACME" engineers
      TSFOed to enable "ACME" to replace them with cheaper contract Indian 
      National engineers to increase profitability. Nothing personal - 
      just business. It's already happening and will be Standard/Mandatory 
      Operating Procedure under GATT. 

      I'm now the CEO of ACME at my shareholders meeting. Shareholder "A"
      asks me why I'm paying an American widgit maker $10.00 per hour 
      to manufacture when I can pay someone in the Pacific Basin $0.20 per
      hour for a comparable product and send my profits and shares soaring.
   
      I am unable to justify this action and can only proceed to move
      the entire show "off shore".

o     IMHO. The real problem here is that what's good for business is no
      longer a synonym for what's good for society. In the last 100 years
      in this country the struggle between labor and management have 
      resulted in an understanding that both sides must have something to
      gain from profitability. Lately and more likely under GATT this
      understanding will errode further and result in disposable workers,
      we have already seen this with euphemisms like "downsizing, rightsizing" 
      and it will continue and expand. What we will have is multinational
      corporations (5 or 6 Americans on the Board/no American workers)
      making enourmous sums of money on the backs of essentially slave labor,
      resulting in an increased GNP that we will be told is GOOD. Good for
      who?                                

      We need Free Trade with regions/countries of similiar standards of 
      living and then work to elevate the standard of living of some of 
      the poorer countries via much smaller treaties and tariff waivers.

      GATT will divorce economic stabilty from social stability completely.
      
                         PROTECTIONISM BAD?

o     Gee, not having Free Trade has really hurt the Japanese economy?

      America is the greatest economic power in the world and I see no
      reason to "level the playing field" with GATT. We Americans simply
      don't need it but the rest of the world needs us and our economy.
      Why play by someone else's rules. Call me selfish for not wishing to
      sacrifice my standard of living for the good of "all the people" (COUGH)
      of the world by GIVING them our jobs. Having multinational corporations
      placing Pacific Rim workers in slum housing and paying them dirt to
      make the same products as us can hardly be considered a "human rights" 
      achievement or a betterment of those people at all.

o                              LEADERSHIP?

      Al Gore tells us that if we don't pass GATT this year we stand to lose
      $70 Million dollars! Yes, the filthy rich, 1 % of elite ruling Americans
      won't get even wealthier - so what.  Looking for a job in 1996 already
      Mr. Vice President?
                    

      SAVE YOUR JOB, SAVE YOUR COUNTRY, MAINTAIN YOUR STANDARD OF LIVING
    
                    CALL YOUR SENATOR - NO ON GATT! 


   

I just came across the following item, which demonstrates how GATT can
(today!) interfere with a country's internal attempts to conserve
resources.

-------------------------------------
Trade Week in Review
Thursday, November 17, 1994
Volume 3, Number 46

                GATT Rules Against U.S. Fuel Standards

A GATT panel has ruled that U.S. regulations to limit automobile fuel
consumption are incompatible with GATT rules.  The U.S. Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) laws requires that automakers average 27.5 miles 
per gallon across their entire fleet.  The panel ruled in favor of the 
European Union, which had complained that the CAFE standards put its auto 
industry at a competitive disadvantage and that the law violated GATT's 
central tenet prohibiting trade "discrimination."

The EU also filed complaints against the U.S. Gas Guzzler and Luxury taxes, 
but the three-person panel found those laws to be consistent with GATT
rules.

Sources: "GATT Panel Condemns U.S. Fuel Consumption Rules,"
AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE, November 10, 1994; John Zarocostas, "Panel
Rules US Fuel  Act Operates as a Trade Barrier," JOURNAL OF COMMERCE,
October 2, 1994.

RESOURCES

For copies of the following, please contact the authors or organizations
listed:

"Greening the GATT: Setting the Agenda," CORNELL INTERNATIONAL
LAW JOURNAL, Volume 27, Symposium 1994.  Cornell Law School,
Myron Taylor Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-4901.  (607) 255-9666, Fax:
(607) 255-7193.  Individual issues: $12.00.

A collection of papers presented at the 1994 Cornell International
Law Journal Symposium "Greening the GATT: Setting the Agenda."
Includes a foreword by Massachusetts Senator John Kerrey.

For more information about the Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, send email to [email protected].

Trade Week in Review is produced by:
Kai Mander
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
1313 5th Street, SE, Suite 303
Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546 USA
tel: (612) 379-5980  fax: (612) 379-5982
email: [email protected]

|      We Americans simply
|      don't need it but the rest of the world needs us and our economy.

	I beg you pardon, but we all need each other. Contrary to what you
	may think, the world does not revolve around the US. The US is an
	important and integral part of a complex trading system. But it
	is not what makes it tick. The world would not go under if the US
	turned to total isolation, it would just have a difficult transition
	period.

|      Why play by someone else's rules.

	The idea is that those rules would be yours too. Get your politician
	to ensure that your country's concerns are addressed. If they cannot
	be addressed, push for an extension to the review period.

	>Per

    if you don't need the rest of the world (ehm !!) why do you sale your
    products to this rest of the world ??? I think that one call tha
    Narcissism !!
    
    JP

    James Goldsmith will be on the Chuck harter talk show 2 pm today. That
    is if you can reach 980 Lowell station. They will be discussing GATT.
    If you can't reach 980 am, try the shortwave tonight 9 or 10 around,
    around 7000
    
    Rich

    re: .40
>A GATT panel has ruled that U.S. regulations to limit automobile fuel
>consumption are incompatible with GATT rules.  The U.S. Corporate
>Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) laws requires that automakers average 27.5 miles 
>per gallon across their entire fleet.
    
    	Maybe the U.S. doesn't have small companies that *only* produce a
    top-of-the-range model. Possibly Rolls-Royce might be an example.
    Complying with such a law would force such companies to develop and
    sell a low-end car in competition with GM and Ford, knowing that they
    could never make a profit, or would keep them out of the U.S. market
    completely if they didn't develop such a model.
    
    (I was only suggesting Rolls-Royce as a possible example, but a well
    known company name. I have no idea of the actual average fuel
    consumption of their range. I have heard of other companies that only
    make 200m.p.h. sports cars.)

                           -< Narcissism ?? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    if you don't need the rest of the world (ehm !!) why do you sale your
>    products to this rest of the world ??? I think that one call tha
>    Narcissism !!
    
>    JP

    The point was made that the U.S. does not need GATT to maintain free
    trade with countries around the world. Please read with a bit
    more care before assigning labels in attempts to discredit.
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      We Americans simply
|      don't need it but the rest of the world needs us and our economy.

>	I beg you pardon, but we all need each other. Contrary to what you
>	may think, the world does not revolve around the US. The US is an
>	important and integral part of a complex trading system. But it
>	is not what makes it tick. The world would not go under if the US
>	turned to total isolation, it would just have a difficult transition
>	period.

        Europe has had ZERO net job growth in the last twenty years and
        an argument could be made that the world as you comfortably know it
        would end if the U.S. foolishly stopped trading around the world.
        That is neither here nor there.
    
        The point you still have not addressed is WHY does the U.S. need or
        want GATT? "Free Trade" is working just fine as is.

|      Why play by someone else's rules.

>	The idea is that those rules would be yours too. Get your politician
>	to ensure that your country's concerns are addressed. If they cannot
>	be addressed, push for an extension to the review period.

	>Per

        My objection is to new rules, why do we need them? To benefit others
        at our own expense...
        After taking a decade long beating by the Japanese the U.S. automakers
        are again making some of the finest vehicles on the planet with
        decent fuel milage and low pollution emissions. Will GATT now prevent
        U.S. Automakers from selling these vehicles in foriegn markets
        just because the U.S. Government passed a law that forced the U.S.
        Automakers to reach those goals?

        So now we have a world governing body telling us our laws are unfair
        and to change them, yet we have lost no sovereignty?

        TJB     
      
     

    re: .45
    >        Europe has had ZERO net job growth in the last twenty years and
    
    	I am not sure what you mean by this statistic without a source.
    France and Italy have declining populations, and where there has been a
    significant growth in population it is mostly in the post-retirement
    band. With a stable or possible decreasing working population it is
    difficult to see how there could have been a substantial increase in
    the number of jobs.
    
    	The EU has its wine lake, butter mountain, ... its computer and
    aerospace industries, and the people currently dubbing Hollywood films
    could work as real actors if trade with the U.S. was cut off. It is not
    obvious to the average European that there is any benefit in trade with
    the U.S.. Many would think it would provide a great stimulus to
    Europe's high tech industries by removing unwanted competition.
    
    	Out of curiosity I have just had a quick look round the house, and
    the only significant item that I can identify as U.S. produced is this
    VT220 terminal that I am typing on. For the rest it is probably around
    60% French, most of the rest other EU countries, with one or two
    Japanese items on my hi-fi shelves.

    re: .44
    
    I understand the point you are trying to make.  However, your example
    is invalid.  The U.S. CAFE law has a floor.  If you sell less than X
    units in the U.S. you don't have to worry about CAFE.  That's what
    allows the RR, Ferrari, etc. to be sold here.
    
    Bob

    You really think that I'm aasigning a label to discredit ?? You are
    wrong. I live in Europe, and specially in France. I went several
    times in US. I know that you don't speak very much about this so far
    Europe ( less than we speak about US every day in Europe) but I can tell 
    you that during the GATT negociations here in Europe the US negociator 
    has made the maximum or US to get the best advantages in all US
    activities. He've done his job very well. If you need not the rest of the
    world so why so much hard efforts to get so much advantages ??
    
    See you later in US !!
    
    JPC
    

    	All such laws tend to be discriminatory, it's just that some are
    more obvious than others. The 27.5m.p.g. mentioned in .40 and the "X"
    mentioned in .44 are almost certainly chosen to not inconvenience too
    much the major U.S. car manufacturers.
    
    	As an example, if the m.p.g. figure had been doubled, then it would
    probably have secured the survival of the U.K. car manufacturer Reliant.
    They had no car in their range with m.p.g. less than 75, and they went
    bankrupt last week with unsecured debts about equal to Bob Palmer's
    annual salary.
    
    	The French government seems to do the same thing, but it is a little 
    more subtle. There is a graduated road tax in France, which gives a
    higher tax to larger, more powerful cars, using a complicated formula
    with "constants" like "27.5" and "X", and the tax varies from around
    $25 per year up to around $2000 per year. The French government varies
    the constants from time to time, and by a strange coincidence, the
    perceived performance/annual tax ratio tends to be better for French
    manufactured cars than imported ones. The actual formula involves
    cylinder size, number of cylinders, gear ratios, number of gears,
    whether the fuel is petrol, diesel or gas, ...
    
    	My opinion in the absence of further evidence is that the U.S.
    government just lacked subtlety compared with the French in protecting
    their car industry. They could have just taken the French formula and
    plugged in their own constants.

    re: Note 3510.24 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    > lets have some historical perspective, please
    
    You want a historical perspective?
    
    Look at the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
    Look at the House Joint Resolution 192, passed in 1933
    along with Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260, and 12 USC 95a
    wherein the Federal Government declared Bankruptcy.
    
    Everyone is worried about Soverignty.  It's already been surrendered
    by becoming a corporator, if you look in 22 USC 286(e) and to the
    United Nations 22 USC 287.  The United Nations fiduciary agent is
    the Federal Reserve corporation.  The Secretary of Treasury is the
    Governor of the International Monetary Fund.
    
    And were worried about GATT.  If you turn a FRN over it says
    "Novus Ordo Seclorum", New World Order.  Fascinating stuff DougO.
    And you trust these folks to operate in our best interest?  I don't.
    
    MadMike

regarding  Note 3510.50 

Mike,

  Nice to see I am not the only one that knows that we have not had a 
US constitution in effect since it was suspended in 1933 by FDR's declaration
to invoke the war powers act.  We have been totally unprotected by the 
constitution since that time.  The only protection we have now is in 
UCC 1-207, where we declare our innocence to his declaring us copayers to
this bankruptcy.  Isnt it also interesting to know that we are not really
United States Citizens, as he declares but we have been dupped into thinking
we are.  I'd enjoy talking to you off-line about this.

Paul

    For those of us that have been 'dupped', myself included, I guess.  Can
    you supply the short version of what is meant in .50 & .51?
    
    rww

    I'm not the author but it is my understanding that, in 1933, FDR
    declaired a state of emergency that suspended the Bill of Rights
    and allow for the creation of several government agencies. Each
    president has been quietly extending the order, once per year, ever
    since.
    
    	If the president where to refuse to sign, several government
    agencies would be cease to exsist.
    
    wierd, ain't it.
    
    jim
    

>    If the president where to refuse to sign, several government
>    agencies would be cease to exsist.
    
    Oh, poop!  Wouldn't that be awful? :^]
    
    							Tex

    re: replies to my .50
    
    It's nice to see folks not saying I'm nuts.  Of course, I probably
    got a bunch of folks busy reading the United States Federal Code
    right now finding out we're right.  For a real neat law, (a positive
    or Constitutional law, the ones I mentioned in .50 are non-positive
    or challengable in court) check out 18 USC 242.  It works real good.
    
    re: .51
    > We have been totally unprotected by the Constitution
    
    Jurisdiction: force them to prove this fact.  They won't. whatever you
    did "wrong" will be forgiven.  I can also send 1st class mail for
    2 cents.  (a pain in the butt and I don't recommend doing it).
    
    Wow this is fun stuff.  :^) 

    all things aside, i don't know about you but i am generally skeptical
    of anything that is being attempted to be shoved down my throat (fast
    track).. let alone the fact that most of the people voting on it have
    never read the thing or even pieces of it for that matter. If this were
    so good for us then why are they (our elected officials) trying to
    stifle debate and push this very important treaty (one in which could
    fundamentally restructure our entire political system) through as quick
    as possible with little or no debate? What is so wrong with this
    agreement that can stand the scrutiny of debate? 
    
    

re .56

I don't call a 7-year negotiating process "fast track". This agreement has been
under discussion for a long time, and all recent administrations both Democrat
and Republican have participated in the negotiations under the general
assumption that we would ultimately ratify the resulting treaty. Presumably, our
negotiators have a reasonably detailed understanding of trade issues, and some
fundamental grasp of what constitutes our national interest. Furthermore the
negotiators have been watched by congressional oversight committees. (No need to
flame me about "stupid bureaucrats", etc. I can be as cynical as the next person
on this stuff.) 

Anyway, this whole debate boils down to "free trade" vs. "protected markets". If
you believe in free trade, this treaty is probably a step in the right direction,
if you're willing to make a leap of faith that our bureaucrats and politicians
are able to exhibit some minimal level of competence in these matters. If you're
not willing to make that leap of faith, maybe you'd better order your 20K pages
of documents and start reading.

--RS

    Did GATT get fast-tracxk authorization?  I know NAFTA did.  In any
    case, fast-track is simply an agreement by the Congress, prior to
    the Executive branch's negotiating an agreement, to give it a simple
    yes/no vote (no amendments permitted) on ratification.
    
    \dave

    Heard on the radio this morning that GATT has been passed by the House
    and the Senate. It is only awaiting Billy's signature at this point.
    
    Harry
    

    The base note posted a November 14th Livewire/Digital Today article 
    encouraging employees to call an 800 number to register support for the 
    GATT Agreement (which passed the Senate last night by a big margin).  
    Each call to that number generated three letters, one to each of the two 
    US Senators in the caller's state, and one to the caller's 
    Representative.  
   
    Following are the results for Massachusetts.  Note the jump in calls from 
    the week of 11/8 to the week of 11/15.  
   
                          10/31    11/1    11/8     11/15      11/22
                           YTD     11/7    11/14    11/21      11/28 
   
       Massachusetts        60	      0       15      117        234 
   
    The passage of the Agreement is good for us: we'll genuinely save 
    millions of dollars in tariff costs; we'll face reduced pressures to 
    make inefficient foreign investments to gain or preserve access to 
    foreign markets; and the innovations generated by many of the 
    participants in this conference will be better protected. 
    U.S. sovereignty won't be impaired.
   
    Tom
    

The following appeared in the Rocky Mountain News just before XMAS'94.

It is an opinion column by Paul Craig Roberts carried by the Scripps Howard
News Service.

Reprinted without permission.  All typos are mine.

===============================================================================
			GATT PARES OUR PENSIONS

President Bill Clinton has hoodwinked Americans again.  He is recovering
the revenues lost to tariff reduction in his GATT "free trade" legislation
by taking the money out of our private pensions.  The benefit to Americans of
lower inport prices will be offset by shriveled pension nest eggs.

True to form, Clinton didn't tell us this.  He just emphasized the increased
spending power Americans would have from cheaper imports.

The pension cutbacks hidden in GATT don't affect every retiree equally, but
many will lose tens of thousands of dollars in pension benefits and some could
lose as much as $250,000.  That's a lot to make back on cheaper import prices.

Provisions in GATT reduce the maximum amounts employees can contribute to their
pension plans over the rest of their working lives.  Other provisions reduce
the amount a retiree can receive if he elects to take a lump sum payout in
place of monthly payments based on life expectancy.

According to pension experts, a 65-year-old employee could take a 7% hit under
the GATT pension-reduction law.  A 55 year-old could face a 25% reduction,
and a 45-year-old would be hurt even more.

The amounts that we sock away in our pension plans are not reported as taxable
income.  By reducing the amounts that we can save for retirement, GATT
increases our taxable income.  Thus, money that would have been saved for
retirement is paid instead to the government in income taxes.

During the past year I reported in various columns how Clinton, desperate for
money, had set his sights on our pensions.  Whith his schemes exposed, he
went behind everyones's back and grabbed our pensions through provisions buried
in GATT.

Since GATT was on a "fast track", the pension provisions escaped scrutiny.
When I asked Republicans in Congress why they had permitted a raid on our
pensions in the name of free trade, they were aghast to learn what they had
voted for.

This should be a lesson for them and for us.  Bipartisanship and cooperation
with Clinton are guaranteed ways to get taken for a ride.  Republicans are
not going to do any better for us than Democrats have, unless they read the
fine print before they vote.

GATT was marketed to the American public in highly simplified and dishonest
ways:  It was tariff reduction and job creation vs. protection and high prices;
it was moving forward vs. gridlock.  Swept up in an "event", the media failed
again.  The pension reductions weren't even discovered until after the bill
had become law.

The new Republican Congress can honestly claim that it was deceived by the 
Clinton administration and repeal the pension cutbacks in the GATT law.
Republicans may not want to do this since they are desperately searching for
ways to pay for promises in their "contract", such as expanded income tax
exemptions for children and a lower capital gains tax.  Moreover, they may
not want to admit that Clinton pulled the wool over their eyes.

Free traders have something to learn from all this, too.  When a principled
argument for free trade becomes enmeshed in extraneous issues, such as
new international bureacracies that might impair our sovereignty and
reductions in our retirement benefits, it is time to clear the decks and
start all over.

It is not a good omen that Newt Gingrich and Co. leaped before they looked.
Republicans could do our country a service by substituting real deliberation 
for the haphazard nature to the usual legislative process.
===============================================================================

    There may be truth in that article, but the slanted, propagandism does
    tend to make me disregard the whole thing.
    
    NAFTA definitely hasn't proved too profitable, given the current
    problems.  We're part of a $20 billion bailout now.

    re: Ditto-head
    
    I believe I heard some woman expounding on this very topic on Rush
    Limbaugh's show a few weeks before Christmas...she was from Denver as I
    recall....
    
    Debbie
    

I would like to comment on the only responses to my reply at 3510.61 relating
to pension cutbacks in the GATT legislation.

RE: .62 by Haas
>>                          -< SOAPBOX would be proud >-

RE: .63 by Eyster
>>          -< ...so would Hermann Goerring.  Do I smell a Ditto-Head? >-

RE: .64 by Debbie Joy
>>
>>    re: Ditto-head
>>    
>>    I believe I heard some woman expounding on this very topic on Rush
>>    Limbaugh's show a few weeks before Christmas...she was from Denver as I
>>    recall....
>>    
>>    Debbie

Gee people, what does all this have to do with GATT???  Sounds like liberal
sour grapes and name-calling to divert the course of discussion.  Are any of
you willing to provide any facts refuting the information in Mr. Roberts'
column?  I want to know the truth...please tell me.

It seems like you could care less about what he has reported.  If so, why
are you bothering to read this topic on GATT?

I would like to refer everyone to .25 by Rod Lilak, in which he questions
a few of the 'amendments' that are contained in the GATT agreement.

Oh, by the way, I have NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio or TV...
your biases are showing.


Jim P.

Jim,

The report you transcribed begins with 

>President Bill Clinton has hoodwinked Americans again. 

and continues with political slurs against Clinton.

I'm not saying the slurs are incorrect but they are the point of your
posting.

This is not a_attempt to "talk about GATT".

TTom

    re: -.1 Tom Haas
    
    >> I'm not saying the slurs are incorrect but they are the point of
    >> your posting
    
    You are incorrect.  You are trying to tell me what I think. The point of
    my posting Mr. Roberts' article was to identify an element of GATT
    legislation that appears to reduce the future value of private American
    pensions.  Since I posted the article without permission, I felt
    obligated to post the whole thing, with full attribution to the source.
    
    If I were to re-post the article, editing out Mr. Roberts' references
    to Clinton, would you be willing to contribute in a positive manner
    to a discussion of the GATT legislation in this topic?
    
    My concerns are:  1) Does the GATT legislation reduce the future value
    of some American pensions?   2) What else might be in the GATT
    legislation that might affect me in a negative fashion?
    
    Jim P.
    

Suit yourself. Post the political slurs and then claim to be discusion of
the facks.

TTom

    It's probably useful to separate the "GATT legislation" into two parts:
    a) legislation implementing into US law the actual GATT trade
    agreement; and b) funding provisions to pay for the calculated cost of
    the GATT agreement over the first five years (representing lost tariff
    revenues in the US.  The legislation affecting pensions falls into the
    second category.
    
    I think it's useful to break these out because it sets up a series
    of relevant questions:
    
      Q1  Is the GATT trade agreement a good thing in itself?
      Q2  Does it make good sense to have to "pay for" the agreement
          with the companion funding provisions?
      Q3  Are the various funding provisions good things in themselves?
      Q4  If one or more of those funding provisions is not a good thing,
          are they objectionable enough to outweigh the benefits of the 
          GATT agreement and to warrant Congressional disapproval.
    
    I won't bother to comment on Q1, other than to say "yes."
    
    Re Q2, it doesn't make good economic sense to pay for a trade agreement
    that all ecoonists agree (ok, you'll find some eccentric dissenters 
    somewhere) will generate increased tariff revenue through increased
    economic activity.  But we can thank the Congress for having passed
    the 1990 Budget Act to compell some discipline in the budgeting
    process.
    
    Re Q3, you'll find a revenue raising/cost-cutting bill anywhere that 
    everyone agrees with.  I don't know enough about the pension provision
    to comment answer Roberts, but I am quite confident that it is utter 
    nonsense for Paul Craig Roberts to suggest that somehow every Republican 
    was sleeping while the Clinton administration rolled this one through the 
    Congress.   It doesn't ring true to suggest that preserving pension 
    benefits for retirees is the exclusive concern of Republicans?  
    
    Re Q4, the answer depends on your perspective.  If you're against the
    GATT system and expanded trade, any negative on the funding side will
    reinforce your opposition.  If you're on the other end of the spectrum, 
    you're going to conclude that the benefits of the agreement outweigh the 
    imperfections of a funding provision.  
    
    If this issue bubbles up, it should be interesting to see who uses the 
    issue to tilt against the GATT agreement (quixotic, at best) and who 
    focuses on possible fixes to imperfections.
    
    Tom 
    
    
    

    I'm for expanded trade and fair trade.  Unfortunately, the people
    implementing this are the same ones that got drugs off our streets,
    brought us a balanced budget, universal healthcare, privileged trading
    status to emerging democracies (like China), S&L deregulation, peace with 
    honor in Vietnam, etc.
    
    So far, we're running a huge trade deficit (primarily with Japan and
    China), a huge budget deficit, and now our NAFTA partner needs a US$20
    billion bailout.  America started out with all tax revenues coming from
    tariffs, none from citizens.  It would appear that soon that will be
    completely reversed.
    
    Sorry, but the majority of our latest trade agreements have been
    unmitigated disasters.  I strongly suspect this one will be too. 
    Logically speaking, you can't compete in the free market with companies
    working in countries without pollution controls, education, and a
    standard of living Appalachia wouldn't accept.
    
    Add to this that we subsidize Mexico, 75% of the UN, NATO, Japan's
    defense, Israel, and host of other niceties.  Guys, it *ain't* a level
    playing field if you have to fight with one hand behind your back *and*
    subsidize the other guys weapons.
    
    We've moved to building hardware components offshore where there's no
    EPA and we don't have to pay squat for labor.  Where do you folks that
    were in manufacturing in Massachusetts, Albaquerque (sp?), etc. think 
    your jobs went?
    
    I'm not a protectionist, I'm a realistic economist.  China exports
    massive amounts of clothing and cheap electronic toys.  What is the
    standard of living in China?  Can you buy property there?  Is there
    free speech?  What conditions do garment workers endure?  What would
    our labor costs have to be to compete with a Chinese shoe manufacturer? 
    Could you afford to live on that in America?
    
    Free trade's like a free lunch.  Someone's paying the check somewhere. 
    Ask our Canadian friends what "free trade" means to them.  Higher
    standard of living?  Doesn't appear so.
    
    I'm sorry about soapboxing this thing.  I firmly suggest anyone in
    favor of GATT or NAFTA look at the standard of living in the countries
    we'd be competing with.  It will be a level playing field eventually,
    and, for the most part, our end is going to have to be lowered
    drastically.
    
    The only benefit I see is that eventually some cohort in Mexico,
    Brazil, Paraguay, etc. is going to offer me a job and Tex heads south.
    You listening, Alcides?
    
    								Tex

re Note 3510.70 by DPDMAI::EYSTER:

>     America started out with all tax revenues coming from
>     tariffs, none from citizens.  It would appear that soon that will be
>     completely reversed.
  
        Just think for a moment: tariffs are taxes imposed on
        imported (generally) goods.  Who pays the tariffs?  That's
        right, the citizens who buy the imported goods.

>     Logically speaking, you can't compete in the free market with companies
>     working in countries without pollution controls, education, and a
>     standard of living Appalachia wouldn't accept.
  
        Actually, you can -- by doing things that they can't (or
        can't yet) do.
          
        Of course, this means you have to be continually running
        ahead with developments and investments in new things and new
        technologies, or you fall behind.  It means that what you
        will be doing in ten years isn't what you're doing today. 
        You can't insist on always doing the same things.

        Bob

I thought GATT (and NAFTA) pretty much cut across party lines, and the
proportions in favor were about the same for Republicans and Democrats
(and didn't all the ex-Presidents alive at the time of each vote come
out in favor of each?).  Whatever the merits of the treaties, the article
quoted seems to play fast and loose with the facts to demean the current
President.  That makes any other information it was trying to impart look
pretty suspect.

- paul

    Re the comment about "where do you think your jobs went":
    
    My information, from fairly good sources that are involved in the
    detail tasks involved in moving production from plant to plant, is that
    NAFTA has actually caused manufacturing jobs (within Digital) to move 
    INTO the US, not vice-versa. Their comments tell me that GATT is likely 
    to do same. 
    
    The casualties from the first include Mexico; the casualties from the
    second are likely to include Europe.
    
    But this is not official information, just hallway conversations. Take
    it as such.
    
    ...tom

    A previous noter mentioned that we have to "stay ahead...do things they
    can't do".  True, we have to do that anyway.  However, you quickly run
    the risk of developing into a two-class society.  Those jobs that
    provided a skilled worker with a decent living (toolmaker, assembly
    worker, machinist, factory worker) have been disappearing rapidly for
    some time.
    
    "Free" trade, IMHO, will accelerate this situation.  I'd like to hear
    from our Canadian compatriots their thoughts on the US-Canada agreement
    signed some years ago...
    
    								Tex

    
    Here is a little note on the same subject that refrains from laying
    them blame where it belongs, but still points at the problems with the
    agreement.
    
    This should please the Clinton Apologists who don't want to be
    confused with the fact and wish to keep playing 'lets pretend
    Washington has our best interests at heart'.
    
    Publius
    
    
* Human Events * 12-30-94 * Inside Washington *

                    
                        GATT BITES RETIREES
                        +++++++++++++++++++

        Using the "fast track, no amendments, no scrutiny" approach,
        Congress recently approved the new General Agreement on
        Tariffs and trade (GATT), with its World Trade Organization
        (WTO) component.

        But guess what?  It wasn't quite as "benign" as both the 
        administration and lawmakers on both sides of the isle were
        reassuring everyone.

        Indeed, tucked away in the legislation implementing the 
        world trade pact, notes the WALL STREET JOURNAL'S Ellen
        Schultz, who author's the paper's "Your Money Matters"
        column, "are provisions that will make it harder for 
        Americans to save for retirement."

        To partially offset revenue losses from GATT's tariff 
        reductions on various goods, the sums U.S. employees can
        kick into their 401(k) retirement plans have been scaled
        back, "and many workers," says Schultz, "will receive smaller
        pensions."

        The money an employer puts into his 401(k) plan yearly - which
        is matched by many employers - is tax deductible, with the
        money taxed when it is withdrawn, presumably during retirement.
        Now, as a result of the GATT implementation legislation, the
        maximum contribution an employee can put into a 401(k) plan
        next year will be frozen - for at least a year - at the 1994 
        level.  Thereafter, the limit will rise slower than inflation.

        Smaller employee contributions, in turn, will also result in
        smaller employer matching funds, thus further reducing
        retirement incomes.

        How many other "sleepers," we'd like to know, were in GATT?

[end]

     ===================================================================
        The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
     (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours)
     ===================================================================
        To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following:
        To: [email protected]
        Subj: (leave blank)
        Message:
        subscribe fwiw

        That's it!  The welcome letter will tell you more!
     ===================================================================

    
>    This should please the Clinton Apologists who don't want to be
>    confused with the fact and wish to keep playing 'lets pretend
>    Washington has our best interests at heart'.
    
    No, but maybe it will appease some of us who are interested in the
    facts without all of the bull***t backbiting wrapped around 'em.  Thank
    you for the informative article that actually gives the details.  I
    also tend to think there are many provisions of GATT that, if known,
    would displease middle class America, conservationists, etc.  The ones
    I *do* know don't give me a warm fuzzy.
    
    Now, regarding the poor confused "Clinton apologists".  I personally
    don't think this notesfile has any room in it for name-calling and
    labeling and slurs like this.  The new "Rushism" has opened the doors
    for this crapola, and I think it's as bad as using body part names for
    female coworkers.  If y'all got something constructive to say or share,
    cool, but otherwise:
    
    1 - Everyone that disagrees with you is not a "Liberal Clinton Commie
    Tree-Hugging Apologist."  They're just someone with a different
    viewpoint.  If you can't stick with the issues and have to resort to
    name-calling, maybe it's time to get off the playground.
    
    2 - Items don't need to be appended to "Clinton's Lesbian Wife Strikes
    Again At God-Fearing Christians".  Y'all got personal views on her sex
    life, what you think of blacks, whether Catholics are going to hell,
    etc., y'all just keep 'em to yourself.  I may be interested in your
    topic, but I ain't interested in the in-your-face rhetoric.  Makes it
    difficult to take anything else you say seriously.
    
    3 - Remember this is cyberspace.  Y'all got no idea if the person
    you're attacking fits your mental image.  I was one of the people who
    complained about the original post and my own political views don't fit
    even close to "Clinton Apologist".
    
    'Nuff said on the manners issue.  I'd just like to start this year out
    and see a little more humor, a little more forebearance, and a little
    more politeness in some of these debates.  I know I've been guilty in
    the past, too (prolly will in the future), but I at least make an
    effort.  Doesn't cost any more, and your mother would be happy you
    tried.
    
    								Tex

I have *yet* to see blame properly apportioned.  I'll kindly remind the GATT
bashers that GATT has been around for 13 years, initiated under Ronald Reagan. 
The current, epynomous "Uruguay Round", was initiated and principally
negotiated under the presidency of George Bush.  The same goes for NAFTA, for
that matter.

>================================================================================
>Note 3510.75                     GATT Agreement                         75 of 76
>PEAKS::LILAK "Who IS John Galt ?"                    68 lines   5-JAN-1995 16:06
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                            -< More on GATT theft. >-
>
>    
>    Here is a little note on the same subject that refrains from laying
>    them blame where it belongs, but still points at the problems with the
>    agreement.
>    
>    This should please the Clinton Apologists who don't want to be
>    confused with the fact and wish to keep playing 'lets pretend
>    Washington has our best interests at heart'.
>    
>    Publius

I have to agree with .76.  I don't consider myself a "Cliton apologist"
or anything even remotely similar by ANY means (not that I like Rush
Limbaugh either...), but I find a number of comments in this notesfile
rather irritating.  At one point, people were more tolerant of others
by not offering up in-your-face opinions.  If you presume people are
reasonably intelligent, supplying facts without excessive editorializing
might do more to persuade people.  (Of course, if your only goal is
turn people off rather than persuade them, then you might as well
not bother in the first place and just post things somewhere like
SOAPBOX...)

GATT has its problems, and you may not like getting taxed differently
(as opposed to indirectly via tariffs), nor where the taxes were levied.
(I happen to think it was a fairly poor choice too, FWIW, but then
I happen to also think our system of taxation needs a fairly serious
overhaul/simplification, plus a long-term commitment from the government
to not tinker with the details, only the "rates" so that people can
make reasonably informed long-term decisions.)

On the other hand, note Clinton hasn't quadrupled the national debt, and
actually *reduced* the rate of increase, unlike his predecessors, where
it increased.  Counter-balancing taxes to revenue cuts were a (small)
start at addressing the real underlying problem that has been operating
policy in the recent past.

The real problem with the national budget over the next 20-30 years is
"middle class entitlements", and as long as both major parties just keep
dancing around medicare, medicade and social security, and the constantly
increasing national debt, there are going to be BIG problems then.  (Young
person in 2020: Gee - you mean that 50-75% of my income tax dollar goes to pay
for interest on debt run up by older people, plus they expect me to pay 2x
the social security tax they did in real terms to support them at the same
time, plus I don't get squat for services from the government compared
to when they were my age...?)  Can you say "social unrest"?  (If nothing
changes, I suspect it will make the '60s with national guard/army callups/etc.
look positively tame by comparison.)  Plus that generation is going to need
more training to be competitive in the global marketplace (regardless
of the effects GATT will have on global trade), and instead of investing
in education (to make the future US more competitive), people argue
for protectionism instead, which will just further erode the future US
competitive position over the long haul.  One of the lasting (bad) legacies
of the New Deal is things like Social Security didn't have built-in safeguards
like rising retirement age as life expectancy increased so the ratio of
work years to expected retirement years remained constant.

Note that Cliton mentioned most of this in his inauguration speech pointing
out that government discretionary spending is going to have to plummet
WITHOUT ANY TAX REDUCTIONS over the next 20-30 years given these issues -
just none of the politicians in Washington (including him, evidently) can
tackle the big problems because it means stopping transfer of wealth from
the future to the current, and people don't like to vote for politicians
that reduce current government "entitlements" without reducing taxes...

Anyway, trade barriers, at best, put off the inevitable, and can quite
easily set you up for a bigger fall later by protecting uncompetitive
industries to the point where they collapse.  (This is not unlike
companies living off the temporarily high profits of a previous generation
of products/services and utterly failing to successfully invest those
profits in generating new, competitive products and services for the future.
Does that sound vaguely familiar - working for a company with half as
many employees as it used to have because of "protectionism" [relying
on proprietary lock in without corresponding investment to maintain
the position, thus creating an unsustainable long-term position]?)

The future CAN be bright, but it isn't handed to you on a silver platter even
in the best of times.  Making it likely to be better comes from INVESTING
in the future, not trying to hang on to deteriorating positions too long,
setting yourself up for catastrophic failure.

    .76:
    
�    for this crapola, and I think it's as bad as using body part names for
�    female coworkers.  ...
    
    Didn't realize you'd worked with Peg O'Meheart too...
    
    Dick

    > I'll kindly remind the GATT bashers that GATT has been around for 13
    > years, initiated under Ronald Reagan.
    
    Eh?  More like 40+ years, started in the immediate post-war world
    around the same time as the Bretton Woods agreements; as part of the
    effort to tie the world together in trade and finance to prevent future
    wars.  Truman and Acheson get credit, not Reagan.  Reagan did propose
    the initiatives that became the Uruguay Round.
    
    DougO