Fearing that the latest round of World Trade Organization negotiations are on the verge of collapse, the New York Times looks at what failure could mean for the world:
Locking in lower farm subsidies would encourage direly needed agricultural investment in Africa and in poor nations that are struggling with soaring food prices. Curbing food export barriers would also push down prices.
A breakdown of the Doha talks would also weaken the W.T.O. at a moment when the world needs a credible international body to mediate trade disputes.
If the world’s richest nations give in to the temptations of protectionism, the world’s poorest countries will suffer the most. But no one, including the rich nations, will escape the damage to the global economy.
Rather bizarre world we live in when the New York Times is editorializing that we need free trade.
The poor will always be with us. The same with "emerging nations". If they haven't emerged by now chances are they never will. And our continued propping them up will only drain our own economy.
The same to be said about our cont'd participation in the wto. A losing proposition. The U.S. should have its own wto dealing individually w/each of the 192 nations. An org owned/operated by and "for" the U.S. With each trade deal made, the first/foremost consideration being: what is best and good for "our" nation. Not to say we can't be fair and even generous w/other nations. But we deal with these nations one-on-one. And we shouldn't have to depend on an approving vote from members of an org that are, generally, hostile toward us. Darvin Dowdy