Welcome to Gaia! ::

His remarks were pretty much directed at American investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and private equity firms but number two on his list was Germany's Deutsche Bank.



I'm sure they will try again eventually. I don't think the mood or the political situation is going to encourage French or the Dutch to try to do so really soon and I expect that Britian will look for an excuse to avoid a vote on the current constitution being consitered. Several EU countries did not let the issue go before a public vote (Germany being one of them who opted to have it decided by its legislative bodies) although doing so could have serious ramifications in feelings towards the national governments and the EU itself (alot of Europeans feel that Brussels is already too unaccountable and without at least letting the public decide whether to accept the constitution or not wouldn't do much to dispel that notion).

The result of the vote on the EU constitution wasn't so much actually a vote on the document itself but on some of the ideas that the EU is based upon (or, some of the things which the EU is blamed for). France and Germany's economies aren't doing so hot right now so there is alot of blame being leveled at the free trade aspects of the EU by Europe's political left who think it is undermining their socialist style economic arrangements (when in fact it is the socialist-style economic arrangements which are causing the problems).

[ Message temporarily off-line ]

In direct violation of both the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

"The despotic power . . . of taking private property when state necessity requires, exists in every government," Justice William Paterson wrote in a 1795 case, Vanhorn's Lessee v. Dorrance, but the state must not invoke that power "except in urgent cases." He could not imagine any situation that would justify "the seizing of landed property belonging to one citizen, and giving it to another citizen. . . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature . . . can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?"

Washinton Post: Clinton Angers Left With Call for Unity

Subheading: Senator Accused of Siding With Centrists.



Which goes to show how extreme some of the Democratic base has become these days. And here's one of those extremist usual suspects in the fray: Daily Kos.



Daily Kosy. I kind of like that one. I may have to add it to the repertoire. xd

Council on Foreign Relations: CAFTA

Well it is a mixed bag.

Free trade arrangements are not always a clear-cut winner/loser proposition. There will always be winners and losers on both sides with such an arrangement. Generally speaking, I tend to support it as well as the principle of free trade in general.

Many goods from the CAFTA member states already enter the United States under a program called the Caribbean Basin Initiative free of duties but those exemptions from duties are not necessarily reciprocated by the other states. So in a way that is an advantage to the United States. It breaks down trade barriers that might be used against the United States and opens up these markets to American goods and makes it less expensive for people in these countries to purchase them. It is also good for the United States because it is supposed to incorporate intellectual property rights (this basically provides a sort of legal protection from companies in other states from making knock-off's of American ideas).

Economic protectionism generally hurts consumers most of all. The definiton of consumer can also include other manufacturers which depend on a product as an imput for thier finished products. Take the example of suger listed by the CFR.



Because sugar is protected by import quotas, American consumers pay twice the amount that someone else might pay for sugar. That means when you go to the store and buy a package of sugar it costs you more. That also means that a confectioner who needs to buy sugar to make their candy also has to pay more. That means that not only the person buying sugar at the store has to pay more, but the person who buys sugar to make candy has to pay more and they have to pay more then their competition in another country has to pay for the sugar (rarely do quotas apply to things like candy bars-usually the raw materials such as sugar in many cases) so not only is the cost of the sugar to make the candy passed on to the consumer (you) but the company that makes the candy is at a competitive disadvantage with its foreign competition because they have higher costs (which hurt American jobs). Now I'm sure that most of the candy consumed in the United States is made in the United States, but this is an example of how economic protectionism can "double dip" in to the American economy: hurting both consumers and manufacturers. Steel is a very good example of this which came up in a recent discussion in ED-P.

I would much perfer a situation like CAFTA or NAFTA to something like, say the European Union. With such arrangements, the United States can enjoy the benefits of a trading bloc without the significant loss of sovereignty which comes with a political union.

Is CAFTA in effect now that the House of Representatives (without the Senate) approved it?

Because it's either CAFTA or let Hugo Chavez buy up with South America with a $17 billion "black budget" for spreading socialism ...

Yes! Presidential signing! CAFTA is in effect, and American economic hegemony rides again! xd That would be the $17 billion "black budget".

Our current counter other than words is Columbia, the last remaining democratic power in South America, but I fear that Chavez is gaming to topple Alvaro Uribe and with Castro achieve political/military hegemony over South America ...