On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:02:01 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Frank Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > >>>From Article 3.12: > >>"Each Central American Party and the Dominican Republic shall >>recognize Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey, which is a straight >>Bourbon Whiskey authorized to be produced only in the State of >>Tennessee, as distinctive products of the United States. Accordingly, >>those Parties shall not permit the sale of any product as Bourbon >>Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been manufactured in the >>United States in accordance with the laws and regulations of the >>United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and >>Tennessee Whiskey." > >OK, a definition of "Bourbon Whiskey" and "Tennessee Whiskey". What's >wrong with laws defining terms of commerce, such as weights & measures? It >doesn't say other articles can't be sold, just that they can't be sold >under those names. When "Bourbon Whiskey" and "Tennessee Whiskey" are added to the list of international weights and measures then I'll buy that argument. >>I have read a lot of the text of this treaty. Basically it's a WTO >>treaty under GATT that eliminates tariffs and subsidies between member >>nations. However, the bulk of the document (aside from reduction >>schedules) consists of restrictions, exceptions and exclusions (as >>well as a couple ex-post-facto laws requiring refunds on certain >>textile trades dating from 2004). > >But no provisions that make us LESS free than we would be in the absence of >CAFTA as a whole. Not the document -- the -effects- of the document. We all witnessed the effects of NAFTA and they weren't good. CAFTA is just a larger manifestation of the same concept. >> The sheer quantity of the new laws >>will make it almost impossible for any business smaller than a large >>corporation to fully comply with the treaty, and will deter and/or bar >>most small businesses from international trade. > >Not true. Very true. The proof is in the trade disparities between small companies and large corporations in the US that resulted from NAFTA. > The only persons concerned with compliance will be those seeking >to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF REDUCTIONS in trade restrictions. Maybe you didn't read the document: It -increases- trade restrictions; it -reduces- trade tariffs and subsidies. And while a trade tariff can certainly be considered to be a restriction, the argument is purely semantic since trade subsidies are not. > In other words, the >agreement consists of lots of provisions that say, you can export this >thing that you couldn't export previously to country X, provided.... In >other words, it provides loopholes in previous restrictions. Loopholes are >frequently complicated, but they're still loopholes, not additional >restrictions. It certainly consists of plenty of loopholes, I grant you that. The real question is who is most likely to benefit from those loopholes: small businesses that can barely afford business insurance, or large corporations with teams of specialized attorneys? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
