Grace - Part I After World War 2, something had to change. The economy had to be revamped and the influential countries of the world wanted peace to be obtained. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, 44 countries gathered to work on the arising issues associated with World War 2 and the aftermath. For obvious reasons, the Treaty of Versailles didn’t work as well as the countries thought it would after World War One, evidently leading to World War Two, and they didn’t want the same mistake to happen again. From the Bretton Woods Conference, four associations were created, United Nations, GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), the World Bank, and the IMF.
GATT was created to establish trade rules, and gradually eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers between countries. Throughout the following years GATT members met many times to work together to lower tariffs and make trade more free. In 1995, the World Trade Organization emerged from GATT. But that was not the start of our problems, no, the start of our problems was the GATT organization; the WTO just furthered the GATTS idea of free trade- to an unethical extent. Since when has the idea of “free trade over all else” been okay? The United States wants to make money trading and selling AIDS medicine to Thailand and South Africa. But, in TRIPS agreement Article 31, states that in case of health emergencies, a compulsory license can be given to override the 20 year patent for drug regulations. South Africa and Thailand, which are both areas devastated by AIDS, used this clause to start producing medicine, for the fraction of the cost the US was selling it for. Three local companies starting manufacturing a drug at a cost of $1 a day, whereas the United States were selling it for $14 a day. In a poverty stricken area, which do you think is better for the people? Bingo! The cheaper one. We know how much people in the US like making money, so of course they didn’t like this situation of losing product demand. They threatened Thailand with trade sanctions under the WTO, which means that Thailand would be losing 25% of their exports because US wouldn’t take the products anymore. In a country that can barely afford medicine, do you think they could afford that? US were bullying Thailand into getting what they wanted, and of course the bullying won. Thailand banned the compulsory license even though they were in desperate need. The WTO just sat back and watched Thailand’s people lose the chance at a better life, way to go WTO. You really deserve a pat on the back for that one.
So through all this, the WTO had this great idea to eliminate tariffs, to help with the idea of free trade and all; you know the drill. Good for them for working towards a cause, but my gosh, the WTO needs to give their head a shake and look around the world at what’s going on. The idea of Cause and Effect is something their minds just do not grasp. The things they set into motion almost always have greater negatives then the quantity of positives that come out of it. It’s like something a teenager would do. You wanna sneak out, there is a big party tonight, and your parents won’t let you go. It seems like the most important thing in the world to you, and since you’re a teenager and your whole motto is to make your parents the most mad you can and not listen to them, you sneak out. They find out the next day and your whole world crashes. They take your phone, they ground you, no computer or T.V. and you regret your decision and vow to never do it again, even though it was fun at the time, the aftermath, ain’t so pretty. The WTO doesn’t feel that regret. And even though they get very little out of it, they are the kid who sneaks out again, and again, and doesn’t care about the aftermath. You all know a kid like that. But anyways back to their bright idea of eliminating tariffs; let me start with the basics. Tariffs are these things, well taxes for a better word, that are put on imported goods and services. It is meant to help reduce competition with domestic goods and services. The governments implemented these to help the domestic goods and economy. Yay, go government! But the WTO doesn’t want this, noooooo, it doesn’t go along with the idea of free trade, also known as TRADE LIBERALIZATION, such a fancy word for a thing that is really not doing much good. They don’t want the international traders to be discriminated against, but little do they know that eliminating tariffs will damage the domestic economies. Even though the imported goods have tariffs on them, things are still fairly equal for what’s being bought between the two. If tariffs are gone, the domestic economy is basically going to banish. You can have things going pretty good, or by removing tariffs, one thing is completely wiped out. I say leave it be- don’t meddle in a situation that doesn’t need to be meddled in. Same goes with subsidies; they want to eliminate them too. The governments put money in businesses, domestically, to allow them to sell their products cheaper and promote the domestic industry. That idea conflicts with the WTO’s belief of free trade. It’s all about the free trade, even though it’s damaging the domestic economies terribly.
Grace - Part III (Yes, there are three parts...) People say that the WTO is good because it upholds rules and is a way to resolve conflict. When there are these rules being upheld about free trade honestly don’t do any good for the world, what is the point of having those rules? They are just hindering everyone involved. When there is a problem between two countries involving trade, they go to the WTO. The issue is brought before a panel of representatives from the WTO and both sides dispute their issues, with the panel making their decision, it almost 99.9% goes to the side going along the idea of free trade. If they also resort to free trade as the easy way out and don’t look at the ethical viewpoint, what good is it to have the WTO to resolve conflict when you know what side they are going to pick, even if it isn’t right.
With 157 members associated in the WTO, you think that something to this extent would be brought up to them before. Maybe they just choose to ignore it, or maybe they are completely struck in awe and don’t realize it, but something needs to change. In a world with enough humanitarian problems as is, the idea of “Free Trade” does not need to be starting more issues. The WTO needs to find a way to accurately promote free trade and regulations on trading without hampering any other issues like health, animals, the environment, the economy etc. If they can’t find a way to suitably do this, then I think the WTO needs to be removed, when the cons out way the pros, something needs to change.
Who cares if an entire nation is broke and rid with disease? That’s ok-we’ll still sell them the medicine they need at the price WE want, even if they have the technology to make the same medicine for way cheaper. Alright so who cares if the air is slowly polluted and we die because the entire place eventually blows up? Everybody will be treated fairly anyways-they’ll all follow the same rules, no matter what. Nobody thinks it’s a big deal if the cattle market in two of the most powerful countries in the world goes down the toilet- “Hormone beef is bad for you!” Well guess what? If the United States and Canada’s economy plummets, then so does everybody else’s! That’s the problem with the WTO-as an organization, they DON’T care. They are all about “Free trade! Trade liberalization! One for all and all for one!” That’s not how the world works. There is a reason that there are individual countries, with individual laws, individual governments. The world was not meant to be entirely ruled by one set of rules. O.K.-I’ll admit it. Sometimes, those general laws regarding trade are a good thing. Such as Venezuela’s beef-without the World Trade Organization, they wouldn’t be able to trade that beef all over the world, and they wouldn’t have an economy, period. No economy whatsoever, because the beef is their main business. But I would say approximately 95% of the time, the WTO have no morals. Since when is it a good idea to have trade food with a country that hasn’t acquired that food through an economic source? For instance, buying shrimp from a small country whose companies or suppliers use giant trawlers without TED’s, therefore possibly killing part of a species that is already endangered.
With the removing of tariffs from the trading between countries, it risks totally destroying the domestic trade of that country, which then brings down their economy, which then brings down consumer demand, which, in turn, brings down the trade that they had tariffs on in the first place. A never-ending, vicious circle. Without subsidies to corporations within a country, once again the domestic trade will fall, but this time, the trade between that country and another could plummet as well for lack of goods to be traded! If the cattle business went in the toilet because the biggest companies couldn’t afford it anymore, Canada, the States, China, Europe, and at least a dozen other countries would not have the beef they needed, causing the trade to go down and the peace we have so adeptly kept between third-world countries and everybody else would explode in our faces. The WTO is held as a threat to some countries, and that is not how it should be used. Any resolution of disputes should be sorted out calmly and carefully, without the threat “We’ll take this to the World Trade Organization-and you know who will win…” hanging over people’s heads as they attempt to make laws and regulations to better the economy in their own country. That is unfair and immoral.
Coop - Part III I hope I never reach the point where I am able to put a price on the value of a person’s life. Such as the fact that to take all the poorly built, dangerous-to-drive Ford cars would cost more than lawsuits against the company because somebody died driving one of those hunks of junk. In retrospect, I think the morals of the World Trade Organization are sick and twisted, and their outright goal- “Free trade! Trade Liberalization! One for all and all for one!” –has little value in the twenty-first century. We are all mature here-can’t we take care of ourselves? July 1st, 1944. A meeting of forty-four delegates, from forty-four countries, was held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The meeting went on for twenty-two days, and at this conference a plan was put into place. This plan was the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades. After several years the GATT lost its luster and changed to become known simply as the WTO. The goal of the WTO and the GATT were roughly the same-eliminate subsidies and tariffs, promote free trade at all costs, and liberalize the trade movement. I believe that free trade is important but without tariffs and subsidies the economy of certain countries would fall and crumble, also tearing down the general economy of the whole world.
The World Trade Organization (WTO), formally known as General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs (GATT) is positive towards the world, by regulating trade practices. The WTO also promote Economic Globalization which affects every person of the world. Economic globalization is a form of trade liberalization, and is import to us because without it we wouldn’t have half the products in our country today. Without trade these product around us would not be here, but with trade comes issues, such as wars, which can lead to a country refusing to trade with another country. That's where the WTO comes in, they settle all disputes on trade issues. Okay sure, they always vote free trade, but is that a bad thing? People need trade, countries need trade. Even with the WTO there are still issues behind creating ultimate free trade, Tariffs and subsidies. Tariffs, are a tax charged on an imported good to make it of equal price to domestic goods. So the consumers would be more willing to buy the domestic goods. Subsidies are a government grant given to domestic businesses to help lower price of production, to make the domestic goods less expensive. This counteracts trade liberalization, or free trade, and counters the WTO policies. The goal of the WTO is to remove tariffs and subsidies and to increase free trade. Some may think of this as a bad thing, because it decreases domestic trade, but in the eyes of the WTO it increases these countries to trade their goods elsewhere. These decisions are made by the 153 countries of the WTO. Each country has a representative, who votes on behalf of their country. Of course there is many who vote for , and many who vote against each decision. For example, in case study number 4, 'AIDS drugs denied to HIV-Infected in Thailand and South Africa', Thailand is denied the ability to provide drugs for a cheaper price than USA can provide, because it eliminates the trade. The WTO voted Thailand not be allowed, and people got mad. However, they need to think about what happens if the WTO did vote against trade... The WTO was created to protect free trade not vote against it.. Why make something for a certain purpose if you are just going to change that purpose later on? -Baylee :)
This is my opinionated people blog on the world trade organization. In my opinion, the WTO is a bad thing for the world. Sure it has its perks, but overall I think the world would be better off without it. The World trade organization started out as GATT originally. GATT stands for the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It started up after the end of World War 2 when people realized that systems had to be made in order to make the world a more peaceful and organized place to live. They were tired of war. They wanted a new era to come where fighting and war did not exist. They also wanted trading around the world to be organized well. One of the organizations they came up with was GATT. This organization's goal was to fix the economic destruction caused by World War 2, and eliminate the trading barriers between countries. Over the last 15 years, this organization has changed its name to the World Trade Organization. Although some features of the organization have changed, its main goal is still the same. It has always wanted free trade, and no tariffs or subsidies on anything traded. Over the years it has had to solve disputes between countries over trade. More and more countries have become members of the WTO. Today there are 142 members in the WTO, and other small countries hope to join soon. The hardest part of the WTO today is building a national consensus that agrees on how the trading market should be. Overall, I do believe that the World trade organization is not a good thing overall. The WTO has had lots of case studies over time, and lots of countries still aren’t happy about their decisions. In one case study, the U.S.A. refused to buy shrimp from foreign countries unless these boats put turtle excluder devices on them. These devices are very expensive and hard to get, but U.S.A. wanted it that way because turtles were getting caught in the fishing nets and dying. Well this argument went to the WTO and they said that free trade was more important. Because of this decision, turtles are still getting killed and U.S.A. got pretty mad over it. There are so many more unfair case studies like this, where the WTO chose free trade over what was right just because their organization was supposed to choose free trade at all costs. Many riots have happened because of the WTO’s bad decision-making. In 1999, there was a major riot in Seattle. Thousands of people were on the streets protesting, all because of a major decision from the WTO that must have impacted their country in a bad way. They aren’t the first country to protest.
Now I’m not saying that everyone doesn’t like the World Trade Organization. That would be lying. I am only saying that a lot of people all across the world wish the WTO didn’t exist. Small countries and Third World Countries think this most of all. Most of the bigger, high-end countries get most of the trading deals and have representatives in the WTO, so they benefit most of all out of the WTO being set up. This has been proven from voice stats and trading growth charts. Small countries don’t get as involved with the trading, and not many of them have a voice in the trade organization. Tariffs are a tax on imports and exports. They are seen as a bother to the World Trade, and the WTO want to eliminate tariffs, as well as subsidies, forever. Subsidies are money grants from the government that are put on products that are brought into the country. These subsidies allow the stores to make a profit after they buy these imports. Tariffs and subsides are seen as important to ay countries because they allow that country to make a profit. If they buy a product from say China, and sell it at the same price, they are not making a profit, and that country as a whole isn't making a profit. This is why lots of people think the World Trade Organization isn't thinking straight. Without tariffs and subsidies you can hardly make a national profit. Life with free trade means no rules or boundaries when it comes to trading. This would be both good and bad for everyone. It would be good because then your country can pretty much take whatever you want, but it is proven that a free trade market is practically anarchy. No rules mean lots of fighting. Trade liberalization pretty much means the exact same thing as free trade. It is removing the barriers around the trading market. The world trade organization also strives for trade liberalization. There are 157 members of the World Trade Organization as of August 24th, 2012. They help to carry out the plans of the WTO, and to solve issues that come up. And a lot do come up.
The majority of the world thinks life is easier with rules. It helps to keep the world stable right? Well according to economics.com, the WTO makes a lot of decisions and rules that don’t benefit everyone in the world. Whoever thinks that these rules are beneficial are so wrong. In my opinion, all countries should come to an agreement on the rules and regulations of society. This way there would be nothing unfair or disappointing about the outcomes of these rules. Some people think that the WTO facilitates trade equally. The fact of the matter is, these people who think that live in the bigger, developing countries where trade is plentiful and in good supply. These people are happy, but they don’t take into account how the smaller, third world countries are effected. According to economics.com, the small third world countries are not as successful in trade because a.) They don’t have the resources needed to build and grow supplies to trade, and b.)Since the country is small and not as successful, the WTO is hardly involved with them because of their lack of trade. Is this really fair? Every country deserves equal trade, resources, and help. So if less trade is available for those countries, why isn’t the world trade organization helping them? Isn’t one of their goals to interconnect countries through trade? These third world countries are less thought of. Summary of all of the Pros: promotes freer trade, updates country’s trade and efficiency, and creates rules and regulations Summary of all of the Cons: Unequal benefits for different countries, certain places get marginalized, rules and regulations are often ignored, and decision making is dominated by the countries with larger economies. All of these pros and cons came from an opinion poll online. Obviously the cons outweigh the pros. There are of course lots of good outcomes from the WTO, but when it comes right down the facts, it is shown that the WTO shouldn’t exist, or it should at least change its ways to form a better organization! I completely agree with this statement. The WTO doesn’t have to go if it becomes a better organization FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, but until it changes the way it is run, I think that I would rather not have the WTO in our society.
Jayden - What started it all? GATT is and international treaty that was created to promote free trade and remove tariffs, which is a tax on imported goods. GATT had sooner than later changed to the World Trade Organization, WTO for short. It isn’t the greatest event that has occurred in history, it is an organization that encourages trade and resolves problems that are brought up. The goal for the WTO is to assure that international trade runs smoothly and freely. The WTO has made a lot of bad decisions over time. In 1993 the US environmental protection agency had a rule which required gasoline refineries to make cleaner gas in an effort to reduce air pollution. This rule was to be set in 1998, giving refineries 5 years to bring gasoline standards up to a single cleanliness target. However in 1996 the WTO dispute panel, and later an appellate body decided the US rules could be “discriminatory” because the gradual phase in violated GATT’s national treatment rule, despite the fact that the EPA rule was being applied equally to some US producers. In the end the EPA which administers the clean air act, had been forced to rewrite its standards too allow dirtier gasoline. One of the results in the end was health problems in the Us increased. The WTO succeeds greatly at increasing free trade, but at the same time does a nice job of destroying the environment. Who doesn’t like breathing in polluted air? The world to this day, I am sure could and would survive without the World Trade Organization’s existence.
The WTO known as World Trade Organization is an organization developed to keep peace and to settle issues among countries. Even though this program was made to “settle disputes” this isn’t xactly what they do. It’s more a matter settling decisions that only benefit the side of free trade. The father of the WTO, GATT created in 1944 in Bretton Woods is to blame for this increasing situation of free trade problems. In my opinion the only good thing about the WTO is the subsidies and the tariffs, which is something that every country has a right to put into effect. Like, why would you pay more for foreign things when you can have things from your own country for way less? But the WTO thinks that they need to come in and fix all the problems that arise throughout our world. This isn’t the play- ground, not all the children need to play nice and share. At least the WTO has trade liberalization so that each country can decide how to make their money. In the case of the Gerber baby food incident in Guatemala I don’t understand why the WTO needed to get involved. If Guatemalans don’t want that food coming into their country because a fat little baby is false advertising, then that’s their business. The WTO really had no reason to forbid them from letting it come in. If the people don’t want it, then they don’t want it.
The WTO is killing us. But they help keep the peace, don’t they? They encourage good government, right? Wrong. Does a “good government” ban South Africa and Thailand, both countries hit hard by AIDs, from producing their own medication at a lower price so the poorer people have access to it? Or force Europe to accept imports of beef raised with hormones, and threaten them with harsh trade sanctions if they refused? The WTO does not care about the health of people or the environment. All that matters to them is keeping the money flowing. Well, I hope they realise that when every river has been poisoned, and every fish caught, we cannot eat money. According to the UN development program report, the poorest 80% of the population consumes just only 14% of the world’s resources, while the richest 20% consume the other 82%. Riots are started over this. So much for keeping peace. Under WTO rules, it is illegal for companies to hire local residents, use domestic materials, or adopt environmentally sound practices. Why is this? Because one must spend money to get imported goods. It’s all about money. Do endangered sea turtles -whom of which are being killed by shrimp fishing nets-, have to do with trade? Nah, who cares? The shrimp on the other hand, are frozen and shipped to be sold at your local grocery store. The WTO claim that they help people live better, and that is true, for rich countries. As for developing third world countries, they are undermined and penalized. The goal of the WTO is to liberalize trade. They push aside everything if it gets in the way. Why? Because free trade trumps all. As an evolution of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) they are supposed to prevent conflict. But when there is nothing to fight for, because of everything being destroyed in the name of free trade, there won’t be and conflict anyways.
The world trade organization was created in 1944 under the name of the GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and trades). It started because apparently we couldn’t keep doing things the old way. They then decided in 1995 that they have to change their name to the world trade organization. The goal of this organization is to stop the tariffs and which would promote free trade. Civilization is built on greed, the governments would lose lots of money letting people import without taxing them. It is not a feasible option. The WTO distributes resolution, yes it is good to resolve conflict but I think some things should take priority in life like not destroying the environment. Trade liberalization it can be good and bad. It’s good to get lower prices, bad to take away tariffs and subsides which would destroy local businesses which is basically free trade. Tariffs are taxes the exporting governments have to pay to put their goods in an importing country. There are a total of 153 countries signed with the WTO at this time. There was a conflict between the USA and the UK involving hormone use in food products the WTO couldn’t support the UK which wanted to ban the use of hormones because it doesn’t support world trade, at what point does morals come into play.
Grace - Part I
ReplyDeleteAfter World War 2, something had to change. The economy had to be revamped and the influential countries of the world wanted peace to be obtained. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, 44 countries gathered to work on the arising issues associated with World War 2 and the aftermath. For obvious reasons, the Treaty of Versailles didn’t work as well as the countries thought it would after World War One, evidently leading to World War Two, and they didn’t want the same mistake to happen again. From the Bretton Woods Conference, four associations were created, United Nations, GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), the World Bank, and the IMF.
GATT was created to establish trade rules, and gradually eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers between countries. Throughout the following years GATT members met many times to work together to lower tariffs and make trade more free. In 1995, the World Trade Organization emerged from GATT. But that was not the start of our problems, no, the start of our problems was the GATT organization; the WTO just furthered the GATTS idea of free trade- to an unethical extent. Since when has the idea of “free trade over all else” been okay? The United States wants to make money trading and selling AIDS medicine to Thailand and South Africa. But, in TRIPS agreement Article 31, states that in case of health emergencies, a compulsory license can be given to override the 20 year patent for drug regulations. South Africa and Thailand, which are both areas devastated by AIDS, used this clause to start producing medicine, for the fraction of the cost the US was selling it for. Three local companies starting manufacturing a drug at a cost of $1 a day, whereas the United States were selling it for $14 a day. In a poverty stricken area, which do you think is better for the people? Bingo! The cheaper one. We know how much people in the US like making money, so of course they didn’t like this situation of losing product demand. They threatened Thailand with trade sanctions under the WTO, which means that Thailand would be losing 25% of their exports because US wouldn’t take the products anymore. In a country that can barely afford medicine, do you think they could afford that? US were bullying Thailand into getting what they wanted, and of course the bullying won. Thailand banned the compulsory license even though they were in desperate need. The WTO just sat back and watched Thailand’s people lose the chance at a better life, way to go WTO. You really deserve a pat on the back for that one.
Grace - Part II
ReplyDeleteSo through all this, the WTO had this great idea to eliminate tariffs, to help with the idea of free trade and all; you know the drill. Good for them for working towards a cause, but my gosh, the WTO needs to give their head a shake and look around the world at what’s going on. The idea of Cause and Effect is something their minds just do not grasp. The things they set into motion almost always have greater negatives then the quantity of positives that come out of it. It’s like something a teenager would do. You wanna sneak out, there is a big party tonight, and your parents won’t let you go. It seems like the most important thing in the world to you, and since you’re a teenager and your whole motto is to make your parents the most mad you can and not listen to them, you sneak out. They find out the next day and your whole world crashes. They take your phone, they ground you, no computer or T.V. and you regret your decision and vow to never do it again, even though it was fun at the time, the aftermath, ain’t so pretty. The WTO doesn’t feel that regret. And even though they get very little out of it, they are the kid who sneaks out again, and again, and doesn’t care about the aftermath. You all know a kid like that. But anyways back to their bright idea of eliminating tariffs; let me start with the basics. Tariffs are these things, well taxes for a better word, that are put on imported goods and services. It is meant to help reduce competition with domestic goods and services. The governments implemented these to help the domestic goods and economy. Yay, go government! But the WTO doesn’t want this, noooooo, it doesn’t go along with the idea of free trade, also known as TRADE LIBERALIZATION, such a fancy word for a thing that is really not doing much good. They don’t want the international traders to be discriminated against, but little do they know that eliminating tariffs will damage the domestic economies. Even though the imported goods have tariffs on them, things are still fairly equal for what’s being bought between the two. If tariffs are gone, the domestic economy is basically going to banish. You can have things going pretty good, or by removing tariffs, one thing is completely wiped out. I say leave it be- don’t meddle in a situation that doesn’t need to be meddled in. Same goes with subsidies; they want to eliminate them too. The governments put money in businesses, domestically, to allow them to sell their products cheaper and promote the domestic industry. That idea conflicts with the WTO’s belief of free trade. It’s all about the free trade, even though it’s damaging the domestic economies terribly.
Grace - Part III (Yes, there are three parts...)
ReplyDeletePeople say that the WTO is good because it upholds rules and is a way to resolve conflict. When there are these rules being upheld about free trade honestly don’t do any good for the world, what is the point of having those rules? They are just hindering everyone involved. When there is a problem between two countries involving trade, they go to the WTO. The issue is brought before a panel of representatives from the WTO and both sides dispute their issues, with the panel making their decision, it almost 99.9% goes to the side going along the idea of free trade. If they also resort to free trade as the easy way out and don’t look at the ethical viewpoint, what good is it to have the WTO to resolve conflict when you know what side they are going to pick, even if it isn’t right.
With 157 members associated in the WTO, you think that something to this extent would be brought up to them before. Maybe they just choose to ignore it, or maybe they are completely struck in awe and don’t realize it, but something needs to change. In a world with enough humanitarian problems as is, the idea of “Free Trade” does not need to be starting more issues. The WTO needs to find a way to accurately promote free trade and regulations on trading without hampering any other issues like health, animals, the environment, the economy etc. If they can’t find a way to suitably do this, then I think the WTO needs to be removed, when the cons out way the pros, something needs to change.
Coop - Part I
ReplyDeleteWho cares if an entire nation is broke and rid with disease? That’s ok-we’ll still sell them the medicine they need at the price WE want, even if they have the technology to make the same medicine for way cheaper.
Alright so who cares if the air is slowly polluted and we die because the entire place eventually blows up? Everybody will be treated fairly anyways-they’ll all follow the same rules, no matter what.
Nobody thinks it’s a big deal if the cattle market in two of the most powerful countries in the world goes down the toilet- “Hormone beef is bad for you!” Well guess what? If the United States and Canada’s economy plummets, then so does everybody else’s!
That’s the problem with the WTO-as an organization, they DON’T care. They are all about “Free trade! Trade liberalization! One for all and all for one!” That’s not how the world works. There is a reason that there are individual countries, with individual laws, individual governments. The world was not meant to be entirely ruled by one set of rules. O.K.-I’ll admit it. Sometimes, those general laws regarding trade are a good thing. Such as Venezuela’s beef-without the World Trade Organization, they wouldn’t be able to trade that beef all over the world, and they wouldn’t have an economy, period. No economy whatsoever, because the beef is their main business. But I would say approximately 95% of the time, the WTO have no morals. Since when is it a good idea to have trade food with a country that hasn’t acquired that food through an economic source? For instance, buying shrimp from a small country whose companies or suppliers use giant trawlers without TED’s, therefore possibly killing part of a species that is already endangered.
Coop - Part II
ReplyDeleteWith the removing of tariffs from the trading between countries, it risks totally destroying the domestic trade of that country, which then brings down their economy, which then brings down consumer demand, which, in turn, brings down the trade that they had tariffs on in the first place. A never-ending, vicious circle.
Without subsidies to corporations within a country, once again the domestic trade will fall, but this time, the trade between that country and another could plummet as well for lack of goods to be traded! If the cattle business went in the toilet because the biggest companies couldn’t afford it anymore, Canada, the States, China, Europe, and at least a dozen other countries would not have the beef they needed, causing the trade to go down and the peace we have so adeptly kept between third-world countries and everybody else would explode in our faces.
The WTO is held as a threat to some countries, and that is not how it should be used. Any resolution of disputes should be sorted out calmly and carefully, without the threat “We’ll take this to the World Trade Organization-and you know who will win…” hanging over people’s heads as they attempt to make laws and regulations to better the economy in their own country. That is unfair and immoral.
Coop - Part III
ReplyDeleteI hope I never reach the point where I am able to put a price on the value of a person’s life. Such as the fact that to take all the poorly built, dangerous-to-drive Ford cars would cost more than lawsuits against the company because somebody died driving one of those hunks of junk. In retrospect, I think the morals of the World Trade Organization are sick and twisted, and their outright goal- “Free trade! Trade Liberalization! One for all and all for one!” –has little value in the twenty-first century. We are all mature here-can’t we take care of ourselves?
July 1st, 1944. A meeting of forty-four delegates, from forty-four countries, was held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The meeting went on for twenty-two days, and at this conference a plan was put into place. This plan was the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades. After several years the GATT lost its luster and changed to become known simply as the WTO. The goal of the WTO and the GATT were roughly the same-eliminate subsidies and tariffs, promote free trade at all costs, and liberalize the trade movement. I believe that free trade is important but without tariffs and subsidies the economy of certain countries would fall and crumble, also tearing down the general economy of the whole world.
The World Trade Organization (WTO), formally known as General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs (GATT) is positive towards the world, by regulating trade practices. The WTO also promote Economic Globalization which affects every person of the world. Economic globalization is a form of trade liberalization, and is import to us because without it we wouldn’t have half the products in our country today. Without trade these product around us would not be here, but with trade comes issues, such as wars, which can lead to a country refusing to trade with another country. That's where the WTO comes in, they settle all disputes on trade issues. Okay sure, they always vote free trade, but is that a bad thing? People need trade, countries need trade. Even with the WTO there are still issues behind creating ultimate free trade, Tariffs and subsidies. Tariffs, are a tax charged on an imported good to make it of equal price to domestic goods. So the consumers would be more willing to buy the domestic goods. Subsidies are a government grant given to domestic businesses to help lower price of production, to make the domestic goods less expensive. This counteracts trade liberalization, or free trade, and counters the WTO policies. The goal of the WTO is to remove tariffs and subsidies and to increase free trade. Some may think of this as a bad thing, because it decreases domestic trade, but in the eyes of the WTO it increases these countries to trade their goods elsewhere. These decisions are made by the 153 countries of the WTO. Each country has a representative, who votes on behalf of their country. Of course there is many who vote for , and many who vote against each decision. For example, in case study number 4, 'AIDS drugs denied to HIV-Infected in Thailand and South Africa', Thailand is denied the ability to provide drugs for a cheaper price than USA can provide, because it eliminates the trade. The WTO voted Thailand not be allowed, and people got mad. However, they need to think about what happens if the WTO did vote against trade... The WTO was created to protect free trade not vote against it.. Why make something for a certain purpose if you are just going to change that purpose later on?
ReplyDelete-Baylee :)
Erika - Part I
ReplyDeleteThis is my opinionated people blog on the world trade organization. In my opinion, the WTO is a bad thing for the world. Sure it has its perks, but overall I think the world would be better off without it.
The World trade organization started out as GATT originally. GATT stands for the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It started up after the end of World War 2 when people realized that systems had to be made in order to make the world a more peaceful and organized place to live. They were tired of war. They wanted a new era to come where fighting and war did not exist. They also wanted trading around the world to be organized well. One of the organizations they came up with was GATT. This organization's goal was to fix the economic destruction caused by World War 2, and eliminate the trading barriers between countries.
Over the last 15 years, this organization has changed its name to the World Trade Organization. Although some features of the organization have changed, its main goal is still the same. It has always wanted free trade, and no tariffs or subsidies on anything traded. Over the years it has had to solve disputes between countries over trade. More and more countries have become members of the WTO. Today there are 142 members in the WTO, and other small countries hope to join soon. The hardest part of the WTO today is building a national consensus that agrees on how the trading market should be.
Overall, I do believe that the World trade organization is not a good thing overall. The WTO has had lots of case studies over time, and lots of countries still aren’t happy about their decisions. In one case study, the U.S.A. refused to buy shrimp from foreign countries unless these boats put turtle excluder devices on them. These devices are very expensive and hard to get, but U.S.A. wanted it that way because turtles were getting caught in the fishing nets and dying. Well this argument went to the WTO and they said that free trade was more important. Because of this decision, turtles are still getting killed and U.S.A. got pretty mad over it. There are so many more unfair case studies like this, where the WTO chose free trade over what was right just because their organization was supposed to choose free trade at all costs. Many riots have happened because of the WTO’s bad decision-making. In 1999, there was a major riot in Seattle. Thousands of people were on the streets protesting, all because of a major decision from the WTO that must have impacted their country in a bad way. They aren’t the first country to protest.
Erika - Part II
ReplyDeleteNow I’m not saying that everyone doesn’t like the World Trade Organization. That would be lying. I am only saying that a lot of people all across the world wish the WTO didn’t exist. Small countries and Third World Countries think this most of all. Most of the bigger, high-end countries get most of the trading deals and have representatives in the WTO, so they benefit most of all out of the WTO being set up. This has been proven from voice stats and trading growth charts. Small countries don’t get as involved with the trading, and not many of them have a voice in the trade organization.
Tariffs are a tax on imports and exports. They are seen as a bother to the World Trade, and the WTO want to eliminate tariffs, as well as subsidies, forever.
Subsidies are money grants from the government that are put on products that are brought into the country. These subsidies allow the stores to make a profit after they buy these imports. Tariffs and subsides are seen as important to ay countries because they allow that country to make a profit. If they buy a product from say China, and sell it at the same price, they are not making a profit, and that country as a whole isn't making a profit. This is why lots of people think the World Trade Organization isn't thinking straight. Without tariffs and subsidies you can hardly make a national profit.
Life with free trade means no rules or boundaries when it comes to trading. This would be both good and bad for everyone. It would be good because then your country can pretty much take whatever you want, but it is proven that a free trade market is practically anarchy. No rules mean lots of fighting. Trade liberalization pretty much means the exact same thing as free trade. It is removing the barriers around the trading market. The world trade organization also strives for trade liberalization.
There are 157 members of the World Trade Organization as of August 24th, 2012. They help to carry out the plans of the WTO, and to solve issues that come up. And a lot do come up.
Erika - Part III
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the world thinks life is easier with rules. It helps to keep the world stable right? Well according to economics.com, the WTO makes a lot of decisions and rules that don’t benefit everyone in the world. Whoever thinks that these rules are beneficial are so wrong. In my opinion, all countries should come to an agreement on the rules and regulations of society. This way there would be nothing unfair or disappointing about the outcomes of these rules.
Some people think that the WTO facilitates trade equally. The fact of the matter is, these people who think that live in the bigger, developing countries where trade is plentiful and in good supply. These people are happy, but they don’t take into account how the smaller, third world countries are effected. According to economics.com, the small third world countries are not as successful in trade because a.) They don’t have the resources needed to build and grow supplies to trade, and b.)Since the country is small and not as successful, the WTO is hardly involved with them because of their lack of trade. Is this really fair? Every country deserves equal trade, resources, and help. So if less trade is available for those countries, why isn’t the world trade organization helping them? Isn’t one of their goals to interconnect countries through trade? These third world countries are less thought of.
Summary of all of the Pros: promotes freer trade, updates country’s trade and efficiency, and creates rules and regulations
Summary of all of the Cons: Unequal benefits for different countries, certain places get marginalized, rules and regulations are often ignored, and decision making is dominated by the countries with larger economies.
All of these pros and cons came from an opinion poll online. Obviously the cons outweigh the pros. There are of course lots of good outcomes from the WTO, but when it comes right down the facts, it is shown that the WTO shouldn’t exist, or it should at least change its ways to form a better organization! I completely agree with this statement. The WTO doesn’t have to go if it becomes a better organization FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, but until it changes the way it is run, I think that I would rather not have the WTO in our society.
Jayden -
ReplyDeleteWhat started it all? GATT is and international treaty that was created to promote free trade and remove tariffs, which is a tax on imported goods. GATT had sooner than later changed to the World Trade Organization, WTO for short. It isn’t the greatest event that has occurred in history, it is an organization that encourages trade and resolves problems that are brought up. The goal for the WTO is to assure that international trade runs smoothly and freely. The WTO has made a lot of bad decisions over time. In 1993 the US environmental protection agency had a rule which required gasoline refineries to make cleaner gas in an effort to reduce air pollution. This rule was to be set in 1998, giving refineries 5 years to bring gasoline standards up to a single cleanliness target. However in 1996 the WTO dispute panel, and later an appellate body decided the US rules could be “discriminatory” because the gradual phase in violated GATT’s national treatment rule, despite the fact that the EPA rule was being applied equally to some US producers. In the end the EPA which administers the clean air act, had been forced to rewrite its standards too allow dirtier gasoline. One of the results in the end was health problems in the Us increased. The WTO succeeds greatly at increasing free trade, but at the same time does a nice job of destroying the environment. Who doesn’t like breathing in polluted air? The world to this day, I am sure could and would survive without the World Trade Organization’s existence.
The WTO known as World Trade Organization is an organization developed to keep peace and to settle issues among countries. Even though this program was made to “settle disputes” this isn’t xactly what they do. It’s more a matter settling decisions that only benefit the side of free trade. The father of the WTO, GATT created in 1944 in Bretton Woods is to blame for this increasing situation of free trade problems.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the only good thing about the WTO is the subsidies and the tariffs, which is something that every country has a right to put into effect. Like, why would you pay more for foreign things when you can have things from your own country for way less? But the WTO thinks that they need to come in and fix all the problems that arise throughout our world. This isn’t the play- ground, not all the children need to play nice and share. At least the WTO has trade liberalization so that each country can decide how to make their money. In the case of the Gerber baby food incident in Guatemala I don’t understand why the WTO needed to get involved. If Guatemalans don’t want that food coming into their country because a fat little baby is false advertising, then that’s their business. The WTO really had no reason to forbid them from letting it come in. If the people don’t want it, then they don’t want it.
The above was from Chantelle:)
ReplyDeleteJulia -
ReplyDeleteThe WTO is killing us. But they help keep the peace, don’t they? They encourage good government, right? Wrong. Does a “good government” ban South Africa and Thailand, both countries hit hard by AIDs, from producing their own medication at a lower price so the poorer people have access to it? Or force Europe to accept imports of beef raised with hormones, and threaten them with harsh trade sanctions if they refused? The WTO does not care about the health of people or the environment. All that matters to them is keeping the money flowing. Well, I hope they realise that when every river has been poisoned, and every fish caught, we cannot eat money. According to the UN development program report, the poorest 80% of the population consumes just only 14% of the world’s resources, while the richest 20% consume the other 82%. Riots are started over this. So much for keeping peace. Under WTO rules, it is illegal for companies to hire local residents, use domestic materials, or adopt environmentally sound practices. Why is this? Because one must spend money to get imported goods. It’s all about money. Do endangered sea turtles -whom of which are being killed by shrimp fishing nets-, have to do with trade? Nah, who cares? The shrimp on the other hand, are frozen and shipped to be sold at your local grocery store.
The WTO claim that they help people live better, and that is true, for rich countries. As for developing third world countries, they are undermined and penalized. The goal of the WTO is to liberalize trade. They push aside everything if it gets in the way. Why? Because free trade trumps all. As an evolution of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) they are supposed to prevent conflict. But when there is nothing to fight for, because of everything being destroyed in the name of free trade, there won’t be and conflict anyways.
Dylan -
ReplyDeleteThe world trade organization was created in 1944 under the name of the GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and trades). It started because apparently we couldn’t keep doing things the old way. They then decided in 1995 that they have to change their name to the world trade organization. The goal of this organization is to stop the tariffs and which would promote free trade. Civilization is built on greed, the governments would lose lots of money letting people import without taxing them. It is not a feasible option. The WTO distributes resolution, yes it is good to resolve conflict but I think some things should take priority in life like not destroying the environment. Trade liberalization it can be good and bad. It’s good to get lower prices, bad to take away tariffs and subsides which would destroy local businesses which is basically free trade. Tariffs are taxes the exporting governments have to pay to put their goods in an importing country. There are a total of 153 countries signed with the WTO at this time. There was a conflict between the USA and the UK involving hormone use in food products the WTO couldn’t support the UK which wanted to ban the use of hormones because it doesn’t support world trade, at what point does morals come into play.