Does anyone know about Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with US? How bad/good is it?
461649
Since Communist China is ignoring it completely, I would say it's toilet paper. The Republicans gave away all of Americas bargaining power to the Communists. Brilliant plan President Bush.
815726
I'm sure anyone from the USA would say they'd get along great.  But 85% of our goods and services are sent to the US.  So, I'm sure without our things, the US could potentially buy from someone else, but there's also the possibility of it being more expensive than they could get from us here in Canada.
25965
Bush assumes it will put US at risk of loosing the edge in industrial production.\nThe agreement will put stricter restrictions on emissions from various industries in america.\nTo adhere to the standards america needs to upgrade a large number of industries.\n\nAnother reason is these agreements will be fully implemented in usa but the other third world countries does not have the financial power or expertise to implement it. So the third world countries will be polluting and producing cheap products while US will be investing in new technologies and creating expensive products.\n\nBut in the long run US will reap the benefits if it signs the environmental agreement, as we have only one earth.
473851
Try browsing through this site, or ask there:\n\nhttp://www.slpforum.com/faq/gfta.asp
1135051
As a far left liberal, I have always said free trade will only work when you impose labor laws on the companies going to other countries and you still provide incentives for countries to stay here. \n\nIf you don't do either, what results is huge amounts of companies going to a different country, exploiting the cheap labor with no labor laws to hender you from doing so, then paying no penalty for leaving this country. \n\nThe end result is both the USA and the country they went to losing... with the company only getting richer. \n\nIt is LONG OVERDUE to reverse things like NAFTA and CAFTA!
1154065
Thats the plan.Mexico/USA/Canada.All one.NAFTA.NAFTA sucks.
969245
It's annoying, but I think it is probably only a temporary refusal.  The EU is gradually becoming a true single economy which will mean common taxation in all forms.  Economic theory suggests this outcome is pretty much inevitable - NAFTA, ASEAN and the EU will become the only three global economic entities and we will get cheap booze and fags through larger scale competition and common economic policy.\n\n'Course it will be at the expense of self-government ...
218015
They should definitely lose this status.  America is being sold out left and right to Chinese workers earning $.20/hr and work in sweatshop labor conditions.  We need to replace the concept of free trade with fair trade.  The Internet issue just one of hundreds of reasons.
574383
Miss, I am terribly sorry about what the USA did to your country. I was there. What we did was inexcusable. Saying I was ordered to do it is pretty lame. Your country, what I saw of it, was beautiful. The people I met and meet now are resourceful and have been pretty smart. I know the US trades with you now. Take care of your people. Be careful in dealing with the Western world. Do not let the multinationals strip your resources away.
649300
Worst possible senerio would be the default of the Treasure and the collapse of the US and then the World Economies. What needs to happen is for the USA to stop spending increases and raise taxes. Tarriffs on imports would also help the American economy by making the price of imports higher relative to domestic products. The Unions are not helping situations either. I agree that the objective for all workers is to make as much money as you can, but to insist that you make so much money that you bankrupt the company is stupid. If the company does not make money , then neither do the employees in the long run. It is very dangerous for the United States to run a trade deficit, especially with a country like China.
779415
Any relationship with Viet Nam is good. \n\nAs for the United States government trying to encourage a trade agreement, it's simply another way of adding a tax, usually called tariff or excise tax. Similar to sin taxes on alcohol or cigarettes.\n\nShould the two governments go into an agreement on trade it will benefit the governments. Both will say; the agreements are to benefit business but that's political rhetoric. Both governments will get money for businesses that are trading with the others country.\n\nKnowing how government works, it wouldn't surprise me if the US were asking for some military base of operations or something like that, in order to complete an agreement.\n\nAnd, just so you know, we do trade with Viet Nam. It's just not an open trade agreement that the government can levy large taxes against.
1186676
Free trade with low barriers to trading would and should not increase corruption or poverty in poorer nations. How could any one get that idea??\n\nAs in the marketplace, the old phrase "buyer beware" is still applicable. The biggest embarrassment I remember is allegedly Nestle was pushing their breast formula with free samples, and native Africans were not breast feeding since their breasts ran dry.\n\nBut with free trade, both buyer and seller benefit. The only alternative to free trade is to drop out of the "world game" and remain backwards. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a 3rd world country anyway??
185673
Just give you some thinking direction instead of direct answer which I thought might be inspiring too!\n(1)If you are from Danish, you might know some major governmental service opening information channel, then \nyou may access to that throught Internet and search for international trade related links, and I think your government might have some well informed sources which is better than heading aimlessly.\n(2)Not sure whether U.S.consulate and commercial cancellar do function as window for business referral and business enquiry for oversea agency & distribution.\n\nJust try, you will benefit from exploring.
462196
You may first want to contact the US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. Their website is a good place to start, seems to have alot of useful information. Good Luck.
348246
I couldn't understand what is it exactly what you are asking. But i will do my best to give and honest answer that might shed some light on you.\n\nThe idea of a negative effect of the trade deficit has been discussed thoroughly by economists and it seems like we haven't got a proper answer yet. Is it good or bad? we don't know yet. WE know deficit and surpluses are favorable and unfavorable.\n\nAn expanding U.S. economy fuels demand by American consumers and producers to buy more imports as well as domestically produced goods and services.\nRising U.S. domestic output, in turn, attracts the foreign investment that finances an expanding U.S. current account deficit. \nIn contrast, slowing U.S. domestic demand not only depresses U.S. output and employment growth — but also lessens demand for imports and the inflow of foreign investment. \n\nIn addition to the uncertain causality, the evidence also does not address the question of how persistent and rising current account deficits may affect the U.S. economy in the long run.\nThe "sustainability" of the U.S. current account deficit has been much debated among the experts. But whatever negative impact the deficit may have in the long run, there is no evidence that it poses a drag on the U.S. economy in the short run. \n\nWhy does all this matter? The answer is simple. Misperceptions about the U.S. trade deficit and the economy can tempt U.S. policymakers to "do something" about the deficit to show that they are concerned.\n\nFrom my point of view i would say that a trade deficit (just as a fiscal deficit) is a tool used by a country to do some economic policy.\n\noh, and that "natural market consequence" that you are looking for might be the exchange rates. A fall in the exchange rates will cause foreigners to buy more of our goods and us to buy less foreign goods.
1015393
The TAA (Trade Agreements Act) basically forces anyone selling a product to the federal government that the country of origin must be on the "approved" list of countries manufacturing the product.  Go to the link below for some good info on the subject.
522218
Your question is not very clear, but here's are some facts and opinions on the topic.\n\nFACTS\n-----\n\nW.T.O. stands for "World Trade Organization".  The W.T.O. was created, at least in part, to reduce barriers to trade.  \n\nBarriers to trade can include direct barriers, such as government prohibitions on imports, or high taxes on imports.  Some people (mostly businesspeople who don't want any sort of government regulation) say that barriers to trade include such things as laws to protect the environment, laws to protect workers (e.g. from being exposed to poisonous substances), etc.  \n\nFree-market economists say that free trade allows the economy to function at maximum efficiency, with each country producing the products that it produces most efficiently, and then trading some of those products to other countries that produce other products most efficiently.  By minimizing barriers to trade, those economists say, we can maximize the living standards of people in all countries.  \n\nHowever, this is true only under special conditions, including the absence of "external costs".  An external cost is a cost that is not paid for by the producer or the buyer/consumer of a product.  For example, my factory might produce $1,000,000 of product per year.  But the pollution that my factory dumps in the river might cost people downstream $10,000,000 in damage.  Thus my factory, instead of producing $1,000,000 of net benefit, might actually cause $9,000,000 of net loss.  If this $9,000,000 is not paid for either by me or by the people who buy my products, then this $9,000,000 is an "external cost".  \n\nThus, although businesspeople and most well-known free-market economists generally won't admit it, environmental protection, labor protection, etc. can save more money than they cost, and eliminating those protections may reduce, rather than increase efficiency in some cases.  \n\nOPINIONS\n--------\n\nMost people's opinions on this topic are based on how their own income is affected by the WTO's trumping of environmental and labor protection laws.  People who make a lot of money from corporate profits generally want the WTO to destroy governments' ability to protect the environment and labor.  People who feel that the corporations are polluting the area that they live in or abusing workers generally emphasize that free trade is a means, not an end, and feel that governments should not allow "free trade" to trump environmental protection and labor protection.  These people feel that trade should be regulated when it causes external costs.  \n\nMy own OPINION is that our political leaders, such as George W. Bush, have expanded the powers of the WTO etc. too much.  The WTO etc. allow corporations to veto environmental and labor protections.  This allows corporations to essentially overthrow democracy and pillage the environment without regard to the harm to humans or even to the long-term sustainability of the economy.