Good Blog

The WTO is a way for the big boyz to circumvent normal treaty protocols and put most of the rule making under the control of easily-manipulated bureaucrats. Yes, it does have positive elements as it standardizes a lot of process elements and makes trade more efficient, but the bottom line is negative IMO because of the transfer of economic power to unelected and unknown interests.

Yup.... Well Said!!! Bill Clinton was actually a Republicans wet dream and probably goes down as the best Republican in decades. Clinton set Bush up to spike the ball right down all of our throats with NAFTA, WTO, Other various Free Trade Agreements, Outsourcing Tax Breaks, GATT, and dont forget....

Make sure you order extra blades for it and it needs proper testing in DC first.

L

I vote in favor of it's castration. BTW, anyone know if the agreement permits amendment? If so, the notion of a re-vote to affirm by the senate may be a complication.

I appreciate your frequent reminders that blame is non-partisan. While it's probably a good idea to continue, I am slightly encouraged that such reminders are often unnecessary. I think that non-partisan blame against politicians in general is becoming more widespread.

A suggestion to cut ties with the WTO is reasonable. But I think that a longer-term solution must go further. I ponder at how unratified treaties could be reflected so heavily in our laws. [Note, unless I'm mistaken, they've not been explicitly named as justification for deregulation - I'll be glad to stand corrected on this though.] It either comes down to willful manipulation of financial markets on the part of lawmakers, their ineptitude to discern the motives of those lobbying or all-around short-sightedness of all involved (regulated and regulatee - for the record, I don't really believe this last one).

No matter what the case, it seems clear to me that we entrust way too much to lawmakers. I'm hoping that non-partisan disdain of politicians turns into deeper reflection on the role of government in society.

i think our congress has maliciously and intentionally facilitated the WTO treaty. when i first heard ron paul's idea to legalize competing currencies i thought it was "out there", but now i am now thinking it might be a very good idea.

when the ability to control our own currency has taken out of our hands, as it clearly has, it might be a good idea to find a way to get control back.

"Second, the WTO's "FSA" appears to have never been sent to Congress and thus has no force of law as a treaty. It is a mere "suggestion"

Am not sure that is a correct statement...the info below is taken from the following paper "Financial Services, the WTO and Initiatives for Global Financial Reform" at http://iatp.org/tradeobservatory/library.... It would appear, as the US has committed itself to work with Congress, to accomplish certain WTO goals, such as repeal of GS, an obligation has been conveyed. Am still working through this paper.

"In its schedule of commitments on Financial Services under the 1997 Fifth Protocol to GATS, the US filed “an additional commitment”18 to work with Congress for Glass-Steagall reform,and with states on other banking service reforms, as well as in the insurance sector. The repeal of
Glass-Steagall -- firewalls between banking activities and trading activities -- was achieved in December 1999. In the context of the current financial and related economic crisis, there are moves in the US and elsewhere for financial sector reforms and for re-imposing the Glass-Steagall type of restrictions as part of the regulatory structures in the financial sector. If this happens, and a dispute is raised by another Member, it is unclear what view would be taken in the WTO dispute settlement system. It is difficult to predict whether the US additional commitment would be viewed as a firm or best endeavour commitment (precluding a reversal once the “reforms” are achieved) or something else"

Jelly, in order for something to be binding as a treaty the Senate must give consent on the treaty as-written.

People can "agree" to do whatever they want but that "agreement" has no binding force of law.

You cannot dismiss the fact that FASB has been pushing for the adoption of 'international' standards as well.

collusion..collusion..collusion..

Some say a treaty amends the constitution. The constitution was declared the supreme law of the land. what can't be done directly, can't be done indirectly. There was a proposal called the Bricker amendment from the 1954 era. It prohibited treatys from changing the constitution. The opponents of the amendment said it was not needed. What is needed is the enforcement against 'Titles of Nobility'. Whether the WTO created this mess or someone else created it, what is being done by a few bankrupts should be prohibited. I would like the capacity to loan out $33 for every one I had with a government bailout behind me and fraud on the front of what I was turning over. Even with a few Thousand (I think I could get together a few hundred million in a few months under these terms), it won't take long to get fat. Repoing t-bills yielding .09% and buying 1 year Aussie paper seems like a slam dunk with a few hedges. If it fails, Bennie will do a little QE.

My other point is that it is about time interpol or some outfit investigates this whole international finance mess. There are people in the know like William Black that say this is a textbook case of fraud and nothing is being done. Treaty or no treaty, fraud is fraud. Regulators like Geithner wearing blindfolds is aiding and abetting too.

I understand KD. And it's not my intent to cause anger but did you see this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80....

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[6] [7] [8] [9]

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30th by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[10]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[8] [11] On November 4th, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[12] [13] and by the House 362-57.[14] [15] This legislation (whose voting margins, if repeated, would easily have overcome any Presidential veto) was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[16]

Quote:

the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote

That is NOT a treaty ratification vote. Senate advise and consent requires a TWO THIRDS MAJORITY.

Ya know, if they replaced that big brass bull on Wall Street with a nice replica guillotine (preferably a full-scale working replica) one might be amazed at the "regulatory reform" that single prop might generate. Why, I bet those banksters might even learn the 5Cs.

Well done, KD. Nice smack-down of "Washington's" blog...

... who's mantra seems to be straight from the school of thought that thinks "nothing says 'reigning in the capitalist running dogs' better than $100T in unfunded future liabilities and an ever-expanding army of unionized government hacks."

Permabear wrote..

I ponder at how unratified treaties could be reflected so heavily in our laws.

I'm in favor of free trade, but I'm more in favor of the rule of law. Looks like a slick way to circumvent the Constitution to me. Come to an "agreement" on what should be in a treaty, then shove through laws in accordance with it that don't require a 2/3rds vote.

It wouldn't surprise me if the the WTO were a scam. Coming up with new scams has been the model for business, finance, and governance for decades in this country. The only thing the Constitution represents to the politicos and their pimps is something to dodge...