House of Paine

stig 13

heres stig and pinky 
measuring the weight
of uncles  thumb 
on the trade and investment scales 



=========================


 In the year since the breakdown 
of the trade talks in Cancun,

 sentiment has increasingly grown 
in the developing world 
that no agreement
 is better than a bad agreement.

 < yes indeed the wallys press cause they want more
which means worse>

 But what would a good agreement look like?

 < who the fuck cares if we can't get a good agreement 
 short of shooting 
half of wall street's biggery and jailing the rest
but just fer fun.....>


the current round of trade negotiations,
 does not deserve
 even to be called a Development Round.



Well before the riots 
that marked
 the World Trade Organization 
talks in Seattle in 1999, 




I called for a true "development round" of trade talks
 to redress the inequities of previous rounds.



 The advanced countries,
with their dominant 
corporate and financial interests, 
had set the agenda for those negotiations.

<"dominant coprorate and financial interests"
     there stig you said it
             now 
why won't you
 take the next  step 

don't they 
 set all  state agendas ?

thats what dominant means 
and  besides
what would change their minds
a win win
with even bewtter  results for them
then this win lose they pulled of?>.

 Whether or not developing countries 
benefited was of little concern.

  < right stig 
    now where does that lead one 
you got an idea how to make em concerned?>

 Indeed, in the last round of trade negotiations,
 the Uruguay Round, 
the world's poorest region, 
sub-Saharan Africa, 
was actually made worse off.

  < hear that ?
stig sez a whole region 
was made worse off 
by trade and capital flow
not might have been
was was was made worse off 

makes sense
even if its not zero sum
the more you lose 
the more i make 
unless stig can make the pot grow that much faster
and and and
prove it can only grow that much faster
if thirdees get a take too not just a give
but...

so far 

"liberalization" 

as programed by 
the wally world"interests"

the ones with no interest 
in third rater's interests 

has  been a fuck u for africa black>

if the agenda of the current round
 is reoriented towards development,

<" is ' here
being stiglitese 
for 
 won't 
but in theory could>

 and if assistance is provided 
to manage implementation 
and adjustment costs
 developing countries
 can gain much. 

< wooow 
could ya  jump from real
screw
to dream cream  any faster
by the  way
" can"
here is just another 
 stiglitese
word for
won't 
but could 
and the  "much" 
here
means
who the fuck dares
guess
what price we pay for imperial greed and folly >

 more people live from agriculture
in the developing world
 than from manufacturing,

< way way more
and barely get by 
    in the best of times >


so agricultural liberalization 
must be high on the agenda.

 But genuinely beneficial agricultural reform 
would need to go further
 than merely transforming export subsidies
 into other types of subsidies,

< the usual scam pulled
in the wall street three card montee
why not descramble this and say so stig 
say its not working for the thirders cause
its not supposed to work for the thirders>

 because many supposedly
 non-distorting subsidies 
lead to more output,

 which hurts producers
 in developing countries
 by lowering prices.

 < ie the "go along"  bribes 
to first world agri biz
hardly help third raters

when they don't 
actually  prop
global pirces
by curbing  output 
but merely
compensate 
 price fall
 lowered first world 
agri biz revenues
with subsidy payments

but then 
how could they
and  whats more
given who runs the carnival
why should they >

Trade reforms
 must be sensitive to the effects 
on developing countries,

 many of which are net importers
 of subsidized agricultural commodities.

< ie wall street dumps subsidized food and feed and fiber
on third rate markets killing the third raters 
domestic price structure
clobbering  the revenue value of local farms and plots 
and these ain't big farmers >

 take  subsidies,
 like cotton subsidies
 in the United States,
these subsidies
 are rightly emblematic 
of America's bad faith.

 Eliminating this subsidy 
would help 
10 million poor cotton farmers 
in sub-Saharan Africa.
American taxpayers would also benefit. 
The only losers would be 
the 25,000 rich farmers 
who currently divvy up $3-4 billion
 in government handouts each year.

< amen stig
this is the dark heart of the matter>

Developing countries 
also need access 
for the unskilled labor-intensive services
 in which they have a comparative advantage

< do you mean emigration 
to the first world as guest workers ?
come on  stig
this is a block buster

you can't say

"well we can solve latin america's 
problems
let 100 milion of them 
move to the states
to work here as exploited
low skill
or common skill  guest labor">

. These were off the agenda
 in earlier trade rounds,


< what ?

immigration off
 the agenda
or was it 
no 
is it still
totally 
pre settled
once and for all
in a thousand diffinitive ways >

 as the US pushed for
 liberalization of financial services 

- thus serving
 its own comparative advantage.

< remaking the big point 
comparative advantage
false factor
reification of finance
as if its machinary
thats where the states have a higher factor  endowment
"the built "
 productive  capacity 
of the system 

of course its all 
     about export of capital
what we red thieves like to call
 modern imperialism     
 anyway
   goood boy
for aesopian mentions anyway >

 Today, unskilled services 
remain largely off the agenda
.


Developing countries' 
alleged gains from capital market liberalization
 have been widely discussed

< 'allegedly gain"
take a fucking stand 
waffling here  
is a crime stig
a crime

this is the essence 

the whole biz is about
cap flows

cap flows
that really 
"work"
 for the trans nationals
and 
consequently
not incidently
mostly 
do not "work"
for the natives

thats wally world 

the one way benefit
of the export of capital


see its kinda s like rape stig

"well i liked it"

out of one party 
to the intercourse
ain't enough

too bad stig 
you can't 
for professional reasons

 play it straight  here
and 
recognize
the  skipper's uniform 
as what it is 
 his uniform 
                       period

maybe u  act
like things 
could be different
and stop there

stop 
and 
never ask
what would it take to
actually make 
the possible real

that too  naughty 
i guess
for a professional 

 but if u did
if u showed  
just exactly
how
 bloody
a series of up heavals
 lies between here and" fair "

then
maybe u'd  
forget drawing up  
  these santas lists >

 (although recent studies raise
 some doubts about these benefits).

 < oooo too soft on the issue here 
    stig
"raise some doubts"
   why not carve the class picture here
in its full relief

               and remove the ambiguity>

 Nevertheless,
 the global gains from allowing 
freer flows of unskilled labor (even temporarily)
, let alone the benefits to developing countries,
 far outweigh the benefits 
from capital market liberalization.
 
< this is nice
labor can't move
but capital can
 but where's
 the factor-klass  cut
inside each nation
labor/capital 
to show the why why why >

 But this issue too 
is not on the agenda.

The trade talks 
in Cancun raised new subjects 

- the so-called Singapore issues.

 But even a cursory look
 at these items reveals 
that they primarily reflect 
the interests of developed countries.

<, what the wally boyz are still
lettin self interest dictate>

 Indeed, poor countries' development 
would arguably have been
 set back if they had acquiesced
 in some of the demands.

< again the wally worlders 
are willing to offer
third raters

"a worse world option"
and with a smile too

and why not 

if by 
 emiserating the third raters
u can boost 
"global" profit 

thats 
progress>


 



Competition is another example. 
Without competition,
 lowering tariffs
 may merely be reflected 
in higher profit margins 
for a monopoly importer.

< this is really fine 
fine fine stig

if theonly  "whos "
that capturing
 the gains
are " first world capitalists stockholders"
 then ...

by the way stig
this type of approach
both showing
the national
and 
the class
 distribution of loses and gains
is the only real approach
and u know it

and yet 
 it's  hardly peeked at
 by most observers
cause for their various prolly damn god reasons
they're 
not willing to klassify the gains of globalization >

 The most important competition issue
 for developing countries,
 however, is reform of dumping duties.

< here is where
both the rules and 
 the refs cheat for the home team >

 The US and EU keep out products 
from developing countries,
 alleging that they charge less 
than the cost of production.

But why would anyone
 knowingly sell at a loss? 

This could only be rational
 if the seller can hope 
to establish a monopoly position 
and extract large profits in the future.

 But few developing countries
 are in a position to establish 
such monopoly positions,

< few?
try none>

 so the dumping charges 
are mostly bogus.
 < bravo stig>

As tariff barriers 
have come down,
 
the unfair "fair trade" laws 
are increasingly being used 
as America's favored protectionist tool.

< god damn stig wheres 
your sense of  the role
of exchange rates here

what a huge huge hole 

the tilt here is key

as is
with the various trade fiddles
wally world 
can
 buy third rate stuff 
in third rate countries 
with "over valued " dollars 
and 
at the same time
protect "home markets" 
from an artificially
 cheap third world commodity flood
by
fucking with "the  entry "
of their undesirable "native owned "exports >


 Treating foreign and domestic firms
 the same 
with respect to competitive practices
 would stop these abuses.

 , so would a global prole revolution
 
hard to tell which is likely to come first>


The breakdown of the Cancun talks 
may yet provide an opportunity for deeper reflection.
  < by who?>

 Now that rich countries 
no longer need to worry 
about losing the developing world
 to Communism,

< jesus stig
hows that a help 
more a hinder i'd say
if they can't lose the thirdees
why bother helpin'  em>


 they have an opportunity 
to redefine the global economic order

 < what
what what 

christ that was in 89
when the  red wall went down ,uncle joe

15 years ago
a near  eternity in global
capital flow years

look where china's 
gone in that period


from 1950
wally  made super profits
 in the third world
 because of
 the threat of communism?

please
oh great  nobel winner
 cut the fuckin comedy 

besides
its been  15 years
15 years
and no change
 except to get worse

what was that
just  bad habits 
hard to brake>

they have an opportunity 
to redefine the global economic order
acording to the same principles 
on which they built
 successful national economies:
fair competition 
and social justice.


<  same as "national."..
why you sly old fox sheepy joe 
this makes 
the whole article
 worth the read
the implied lack till now
of any effective global strategy 
of 
 "fair competition 
and social justice.">


 Unfortunately,
 this opportunity was squandered 
in the Uruguay Round,

< thanks joe
for going on the record 
 again saying
the world has yet to experience
 fairness and
 social justice 
in all the merry go "rounds "
                   of
  the global trade 
and  investment  game >


 as developed countries
 advanced their own interests 
at the expense 
of less developed countries.

< yes joe yes
say again joe and again  and again 
the record shows
as of today
 wally wins
 means
 thirdees lose

both 
national and klass 
 interests 
are globally 
antagonistic >


The round of trade negotiations 
begun in Doha in November 2001
 was launched in a different spirit.

< " different spirit
says who 
and 
who believes em
 and if so why
are they fuckin retarded ?>


 Doha 
 aspired to promote trade 
as a vehicle of partnership

 between developed 
and developing countries.

,<" a vehicle of partnership"
            please stiggy
don't set us up
for the final fall 
             so obviously here
you look silly
or is it a comic trip move meant to be seen
avoided easily and laffed about >

 Regrettably,
 in spite of its name,
 
the Development Round 
has offered 
far less to developing countries
 than one would have hoped
.
  < ""regrettably" "offered far less "
"then... hoped" 

  fuck man
why the ever so typical
   petty rad endsville  raggedy andy shit 

       a boo hoo
so arch and bathetic as to be an insult 
   why did u decide to end 
       not with an end time  trumpet blast 
         but a wistful  piper's flute >