House of Paine

make that but two

doha doha doha ...


whats on the table 
this week in hong kong 
best case
 according to the wrold bank:

" eliminating government interference 
in trade flows would add 
between  $280 and $460 billion
 to the global economy by 2015 
 with a bit less than one-third 
of that going to developing countries"


" Some  emerging market countries
  would come out losers"
 
"The $287 billion figure 
pales beside the $832 billion global gain
 that the bank was projecting 
as recently as 2003"


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


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


peanuts right?

well inside the flux in primary
                   commodity prices 

but the farce goes on any way 

here's 


"...[A] vast chorus of world leaders 
have warned that the possible failure
 of the Doha trade talks would be
 a lost opportunity to alleviate poverty 
in developing countries. 



The current log-jam centres 
on the European Union’s offer to reduce 
its agricultural tariffs on condition 
that developing countries agree 
to open their manufacturing and services sectors

. ... Unfortunately this ... deal is ... wrongheaded ... For one thing, it is misleading to present European agricultural liberalisation as a concession to the developing countries. The Common Agricultural Policy is an unsustainable system that ... has been on the brink of collapsing under its own weight. ... it is surely too much ... to ask them to offer concessions in return. Second, it is inappropriate for the largest and richest countries to be demanding a quid pro quo from the poorest. The developing countries are in no position to bargain with the superpowers. ... [The] deal is also based on the assumption that poor countries should satisfy themselves with being agricultural suppliers to rich nations. It asks developing countries to expose their manufacturing industries to competition from more advanced and larger economies, potentially throwing those workers into unemployment, and it asks them to forgo attempts to promote their own service sector industries. ... 

[M]any of the poorest countries actually have very little to gain from agricultural reform in the short run. ... 

most of the poorest nations are net food importers.


 Reductions in subsidies will increase the price they pay for imported commodities... Also, most ... are beneficiaries of special schemes granting them free market access to European and US markets. ... 
so tariff reductions would only benefit 
their competitors’ exports at their expense. ... 
There is much that could be done 
by the World Trade Organisation 
to promote development ... 
But few of those things are i
ncluded in the emerging agenda. ... 

There is much that could be done
 to reduce tariffs on industrial goods.
 The structure of rich countries’ tariffs 
is heavily biased against the goods
 exported by poor countries,
 particularly labour-intensive
 industrial goods and processed foods. ...

 There is also much that could be done
 to increase the mobility of workers. ... 


"the Doha round needs to get serious
 about “aid for trade”.

 In recent years the EU and US 
have slashed tariffs to the poorest countries
 under special schemes granting 
them free market access.

 Yet ... we have witnessed almost no increase 
in the volume of exports from beneficiary countries.

 This experience belies the rhetoric of politicians
 who espouse the virtues of trade over aid.

 Market access is not enough. 
Without assistance to overcome gaps
 in infrastructure,
 boost product quality and connect 
to international supply chains, 
tariff cuts have little effect 
on trade from the poorest nations.