I keep hearing this "we have to get up and compete, and win, or we will lose out in this international trade game".....

When since did international trade, become about nationalism and domsetic pride?
:dgi:

Aside from the sentence being oxymoronic, it just goes against a major underpinning of international trade; which is to increase international harmonization as well as stregnthen the peace through shared interests. It is not about compete to make gains because you will lose, it is not about who is left behind or who is winning or losing; it is obvious there are winners and losers. The idea is to win sometimes, and for that matter, trade smart. Trying to rush the process, is not the first steps to learning to trade smart.

Do not let these people trick you, and tell you that we have to push hard now in order to win. It's horse radish. It is Foolish and stupid, to rush into anything, let alone complex international trade agreements, and not have your eye on the ball.

I will be totally honest with you, the people who want to push ahead now, are the people who will make the short term net gains, while most of you lose; and their gains will be marginal at best. This is the truth. Even more true, most will lose tremendously, if you do not push for the proper safeguards to ensure your domestic growth, and for that matter, ensure that your domestic market and advantage is secured for your own countries best political interest.

NO MAJOR DEMOCRACY....NONE....practices the free trade they so desperately want for everyone else. NONE OF THEM. They all protect their industries, and they all have grown and strengthened their domestic industries, for the sake of their internal political and economic stability. Because, the minute they are forced to lower tariffs, they put up some other barrier...even worse in the U.S., as they tell some countries what to produce and how much.

Be careful, and I told you first, of these city slickers, giving you half of the truth, while the full truth is needed for the majority of us to get a better shake in this global shell game.

tsk ... tsk ... tsk ...

The Bahamas is signatory to the Carribean Basin Initiative with the US, and it expires in December of 2008. It is non-WTO compliant. When that goes, so does some of our preferred rates (for example on the $50 million in crawfish that we ship).

In addition, the Contonou Agreement with the European Union expires in December 2007. It gives us preferred status for Bacardi Rum, $95 million dollars in fibers from Freeport Polymer and our fishing catches. Bacardi stands to lose 200 jobs in Freeport if the deal is not re-negotiated. The total cost to the Bahamas is estimated at close to half a billion in direct and indirect economic impact.

Then we have Lome IV with the European Union. Folks say "what have we gat to trade". Well it een much, but it will sure make a huge impact if we lose it. We cannot afford to lose out in the world free trade.

YK, why you putting dis crap up? I reviewed your very own year end paper for the London School of Economics, and in one of your papers you came to the conclusion after your research, that freer trade economies did better than closed ones. What's good for the world is good for the Bahamas.

tsk ... tsk ... tsk ...
The Bahamas is signatory to the Carribean Basin Initiative with the US, and it expires in December of 2008. It is non-WTO compliant. When that goes, so does some of our preferred rates (for example on the $50 million in crawfish that we ship).
In addition, the Contonou Agreement with the European Union expires in December 2007. It gives us preferred status for Bacardi Rum, $95 million dollars in fibers from Freeport Polymer and our fishing catches. Bacardi stands to lose 200 jobs in Freeport if the deal is not re-negotiated. The total cost to the Bahamas is estimated at close to half a billion in direct and indirect economic impact.
Then we have Lome IV with the European Union. Folks say "what have we gat to trade". Well it een much, but it will sure make a huge impact if we lose it. We cannot afford to lose out in the world free trade.
YK, why you putting dis crap up? I reviewed your very own year end paper for the London School of Economics, and in one of your papers you came to the conclusion after your research, that freer trade economies did better than closed ones. What's good for the world is good for the Bahamas.



Yall two know each other dead good eh?

You guys seem like from one extreme to the other.

Yall two know each other dead good eh?
You guys seem like from one extreme to the other.


He is going to the LSE on a full scholarship (who would of thunk it) and I came out of there before him. Not many Bahamians get to go to the London School of Economics, and we both have similar backgrounds -- poor single parents, etc.

So it behooves me to keep ma brudda on da right path. He has a contribution to make, if not to the Bahamas, then to the world. He jest gatta wear off some of da rough spots, and learn to do more critical thinking before typing.

He is going to the LSE on a full scholarship (who would of thunk it) and I came out of there before him. Not many Bahamians get to go to the London School of Economics, and we both have similar backgrounds -- poor single parents, etc.

So it behooves me to keep ma brudda on da right path. He has a contribution to make, if not to the Bahamas, then to the world. He jest gatta wear off some of da rough spots, and learn to do more critical thinking before typing.



Yk/alien is actually in school, at LSE :jawdroop: Come on Alien, more is expected from you man.

yeah, still at school at his age, i figured he would at least be training to be a doctor .. :D

Congrats on the scholarship though ... how does one get one of those if you dont mind me asking? I thought those were given to high school students? Also, are there any careers in what he is studying?

Yk/alien is actually in school, at LSE :jawdroop: Come on Alien, more is expected from you man.


what is LSE Nevermind....decided to read the previous posts...

tsk ... tsk ... tsk ...
The Bahamas is signatory to the Carribean Basin Initiative with the US, and it expires in December of 2008. It is non-WTO compliant. When that goes, so does some of our preferred rates (for example on the $50 million in crawfish that we ship).
If it is non WTO compliant, then there is no need for WTO to give us the extra, because they hate the system. They are going to extend the CBI from what I have heard.

For that matter, no RTA or PTA is FULLY WTO compliant, to what THEY think compliance is; not even when we speak of open Regionalism. It is all "trade diversionary" to them (WTO), and the MTS would prefer to see it all abolished; but some people see a desperate need for RTA's and bi-lateral agreements with and in developing countries. Not that this is on the topic I wanted to discuss directly. I too see a need for them, if only from a process of joint growth, and yet still not full fledged participation without our interests being met at it's maximum. Which in fact, if you look around, it is FAR from being met. Case in point, our ridiculous labour union regimes as well as the strong open protection of domestic interests, void of political tampering and the change of the political tide. All aside from Bastian in the union business are jokers and soft. Also, just take a look at how one election, changed the course of business in this country; for the worse I may add.


In addition, the Contonou Agreement with the European Union expires in December 2007. It gives us preferred status for Bacardi Rum, $95 million dollars in fibers from Freeport Polymer and our fishing catches. Bacardi stands to lose 200 jobs in Freeport if the deal is not re-negotiated. The total cost to the Bahamas is estimated at close to half a billion in direct and indirect economic impact.
This agreement is much different than WTO/RTAs or their PLUS's. They were strong, calculated moves on behalf of domestic interests when they had an advantage, as well as a need to produce more and make more profit. It was not signing onto it for the heck of it, or for that matter, like CBI, if there is a need on both sides to continue on with it, then that WILL happen; regardless of the WTO or the trade and global economic governing bodies.


Then we have Lome IV with the European Union. Folks say "what have we gat to trade". Well it een much, but it will sure make a huge impact if we lose it. We cannot afford to lose out in the world free trade.
We een have to march into WTO or no RTA, without making sure that what we have, is going to be secured and also that what we want to make profit out of, does not go into the hands of interests not of our own. Look at New Europe as well as the Latin America's response to "induced" liberalized trade. They have spun a proliferation of NGO's and socialist movements to counteract the induced liberalizing agents. We have to be careful, not only of our advantage being fritted away needlessly, but also, our social welfare is protected as well as our democracy kept in tact.


YK, why you putting dis crap up? I reviewed your very own year end paper for the London School of Economics, and in one of your papers you came to the conclusion after your research, that freer trade economies did better than closed ones. What's good for the world is good for the Bahamas.

Aha....they did, but "on paper" and "macro-economic" trends showed it. But, that did not speak to actual welfare, political stability or the slow process through joint negotiations which they all were in on, to get the "numbers" to where it is today. As in the case of "New Europe" they have shown GDP growth as well as increased imports and exports. However, it has been marred by political instability, out of control monetary policies; induced by a central banking system which is not domestically embedded, as well as high unemployment coupled with inflation. Also, the heavy outflows of immigration, which is still a concern to allot of people; not because they are discriminatory, but those people should be developing their own country. One can take a look at Africa, to see what happens when the strong leave the ship, to go for a life elsewhere; brain drain does not even describe it.

In addition, all of the European countries, as well as the U.S., had "entrenched" domestic interests, with that, this WTO/GATT did not just fall out of the sky, it was an effort which has been steadily progressing to where it is now from the 40s, in conjuntion with that, the new "rules based" system as a thing of the 90s; prior to that, it was all based on power and interest, which seemed to work best when the group was small, and for that matter, is the way it is still working now, just that they guise their power in the form of vague and ambiguos rulings. But, the problem is today, the pool is too heavy and the system is seriously set against developing countries in particular, as well as any weaker trading regime, because as quiet as they keep it, this thing "the western powers" feeds itself off of the mouth of embedded liberalism; it's trade predatory in other words. We should be careful, and not act like we are some bourgeroise up to date savvy globalists, and be practical in our approach, protect our people first and then use "very methodically" use what we have to inch closer to an acceptable level of global compettition. Anyone who say's to rush in, is just a tad bit foolish in my mind.

On another vien, in the case of the EU, globalization's shock impact was softened by very strong socialist tendencies, which gave the process, which has been happening since the late 40s, the kind of moderation that it needed in order to be where it is today; with a strong politcally stable regime and vested domestic interests protected. In the case of the U.S., they are the global hegemon, so they make the rules and the terms of what is traded. We can not base our position, on the performance and current positions of any of them.

In Trinidad, the trends may appear to reflect growth from time to time, but poverty has increased as well as rampant political instability as well as the violence that goes with it.

So, to conclude, I am not saying a full fledged NO to any form of liberalized trade, but just that we have to put the mechanisms and the state protection agents in place, to make sure the transition is one in sync with the growth of the domestic vested interests. With that, it can not be the top down liberal credo that we have been hearing; it does not work that way, because in order for the domestic interests to be served, it must be from the domestic interests themselves.

He is going to the LSE on a full scholarship (who would of thunk it) and I came out of there before him. Not many Bahamians get to go to the London School of Economics, and we both have similar backgrounds -- poor single parents, etc.

So it behooves me to keep ma brudda on da right path. He has a contribution to make, if not to the Bahamas, then to the world. He jest gatta wear off some of da rough spots, and learn to do more critical thinking before typing.


Apart from that, I still need you in time to come, to review my dissertation.
hehehehehe.....

It is similar to what we are discussing, and for that matter, I hope it makes the case for why what I have been saying is important. I won't inundate you with all of it at once, but in small packages if you allow me; it's about 10k words.

I am not sure about my exams though, I mean, I am never sure. They said once we "answered" the question, it is an automatic pass. But, what does that mean!?!?
:dgi:

LSE, aye? I am looking at LSHTM for a PGDip.


I will read your post Alien and respond!

LSE, aye? I am looking at LSHTM for a PGDip.


I will read your post Alien and respond!


What is LSHTM?

What is LSHTM?


http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/

~~~

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/
~~~


Right right right....that is right accross the street from me. I walk past it every day. LOL....

I have never heard the abbreviation used however...lol....

I'm gonna stick with financial engineering. No benefit in the bahamas but too many bahamians trying they hands at economics.

I'm gonna stick with financial engineering. No benefit in the bahamas but too many bahamians trying they hands at economics.


Stick with things that don't change huh...keeps it very straight forward.
:)