Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Timber Loftis · 02-20-2004, 03:49 PM

Back on topic, I note The Economist disagrees with me that "job migration" is a worry.

ARTICLE

However, this article does not address my most important hack, the simple application of adjustment measures contained in the WTO/GATT to account for environmental and labor externalities. Of course, the Economist likely has addressed it at some point, but I haven't seen it. I am PRO free trade generally, but I think the very sensible exceptions contained in article XX of the WTO/GATT (and the side agreements expanding upon the ideas, such as the Sanitary/Phytosanitary ["SPS"] Agreement) have been WAY TOO NARROW.

For instance, if something will affect health, the SPS Agreement says you can place tarriffs or restrictions on it. When the UK tried to do this with beef hormone, the WTO wouldn't let it because it could not affirmatively prove harm. You mentioned the new law requiring "proof of no harm," skunk -- the WTO ruling against the UK in Beef Hormone was decided based on the exact opposite burden of proof, and that's a problem that nearly hamstrings the SPS Agreement.

[ 02-20-2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

02-20-2004, 03:49 PM	#17
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Back on topic, I note The Economist disagrees with me that "job migration" is a worry. ARTICLE However, this article does not address my most important hack, the simple application of adjustment measures contained in the WTO/GATT to account for environmental and labor externalities. Of course, the Economist likely has addressed it at some point, but I haven't seen it. I am PRO free trade generally, but I think the very sensible exceptions contained in article XX of the WTO/GATT (and the side agreements expanding upon the ideas, such as the Sanitary/Phytosanitary ["SPS"] Agreement) have been WAY TOO NARROW. For instance, if something will affect health, the SPS Agreement says you can place tarriffs or restrictions on it. When the UK tried to do this with beef hormone, the WTO wouldn't let it because it could not affirmatively prove harm. You mentioned the new law requiring "proof of no harm," skunk -- the WTO ruling against the UK in Beef Hormone was decided based on the exact opposite burden of proof, and that's a problem that nearly hamstrings the SPS Agreement. [ 02-20-2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] __________________