Sorry I misaddressed this last week. Frank Gilliland <wrote in part: >Not the document -- the -effects- of the document.
I'm hearing that from Ralph & Kathy on the interaction of CAFTA with Codex Alimentarius. I need to see what cooler analysts have to say about this. > We all witnessed the effects of NAFTA and they weren't good. Please state them. >Very true. The proof is in the trade disparities between small >companies and large corporations in the US that resulted from NAFTA. Suppose that were true. It may well be that a side effect of various changes in regulations (in whatever direction) may change the [dis]economies of scale. Suppose then that either a greater fraction, or a smaller fraction, of economic activity is then carried out within larger firms, or smaller firms. If it makes us richer overall, why is that a concern? >Maybe you didn't read the document: It -increases- trade restrictions; Can you point to a single article which could be imported legally before, but not according to CAFTA? >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? Suppose one is more likely to benefit than the other. As long as it's a BENEFIT (and not a penalty), then why do you complain? Bounty? Rely, Iris!, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
