British Pm Calls For Europe To Deregulate, Push Free Trade

[Pole]

The EU was started with those free trade deals... All we now need is the global curerncy and the global government.

It's good to finally discover that Mr Cameron is a pure globalist.

British PM calls for Europe to deregulate, push free trade (reuters)

British Prime Minister David Cameron called on Friday for Europe to launch a major drive to deregulate business, innovate and sign free trade pacts with Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

"Europe has got to earn its way," Cameron told delegates in an address at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting. "The world doesn't owe us a living."

Pointing to the EU's free trade agreement with South Korea -- signed last year -- as a model, Cameron said Brussels should pursue similar deals with India, Canada, Latin America, the Middle East and the ASEAN economic bloc.

"We in Europe shouldn't be cautious about world trade, we should be actively, aggressively pushing for it," Cameron said.

The British leader added his voice to calls for the Doha round of world trade talks to reach a successful conclusion this year but said it would not happen with more words.

Instead concessions were needed on agricultural safeguards and on industrial goods from emerging markets, he said, and more was needed from all sides on the area of services.

"2011 is the make or break year," Cameron said, referring to the Doha talks, which are in their tenth year.

[LuckyOne]

To my mind, this is the key quote :

"The world doesn't owe us a living."

Once we finally come to understand and accept this reality, we can then try to work out how we can sustain, let alone improve, our standard of living within this context.

I do not see any easy solutions.

[Pole]

To my mind, this is the key quote :

"The world doesn't owe us a living."

Once we finally come to understand and accept this reality, we can then try to work out how we can sustain, let alone improve, our standard of living within this context.

I do not see any easy solutions.

rubbish.

'The world doesn't owe us a living'? - Us? Who's 'us'??? I can't see this being applied to bankers and politicians!

Most of our recent problems are because of globalism. Most British people don't want to even be in the EU.

[Ruffneck]

Tory/Lab/Con = same party same policies.

Haven't people worked that out yet? It's all a game.

Calling for free trade then putting carbon taxes etc on their own countries to make them less competitive (Don't hold your breath waitinf for China or India to introduce carbon tax) at a time when cheap imports flood in destroying what is left of industry and services.

When was the last time a UK politician worked FOR that country rather than against it?

[LuckyOne]

rubbish.

'The world doesn't owe us a living'? - Us? Who's 'us'??? I can't see this being applied to bankers and politicians!

Most of our recent problems are because of globalism. Most British people don't want to even be in the EU.

"Us" is the UK economy.

I agree that there are some people getting an unfair share of UK economic output. They include some bankers, some politicians, some owners of capital, some public sector workers, some union leaders and some benefit recipients. Arguing about how to split the economic spoils has some value. Arguing about how to sustain the economic spoils, let alone increase them in a competitive world is much more important.

Our problem isn't globalism. Our problem is that we have built up an unsustainable bubble in house prices, massive debt dependency, we have a poor industrial policy, we have public spending which delivers very poor value for money and we have allowed ourselves to fall into a benefits trap where working pays less than not working for too many people.

The anti-globalsm arguement seems to think that our cross border activities are the root of our problems and that slapping on a few tarrifs will solve the problem and magically let us sustain a lifetyle beyond the value of what we produce. They are wrong : the solution to our problems lie internally and not externally.

Trying to deflect attention to the root causes of the problem by arguing about how we divide economic output while losing sight of the fact that our economic potential is shrinking smacks of fiddling while Rome is burning.

[R K]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

The mask comes off.

Another one who doesn't understand that the reason we're in this sh1t in the first place is due to the WTO and 'free trade'.

Glow Ball Billionaires get richer, everyone else relatively gets poorer.

At least now we know exactly who The Bullingdon Boys are working for. The pretense is gone.

deregulate business, innovate

You mean like your bankster chums David?

Edited January 28, 2011 by Red Karma

[LuckyOne]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

The mask comes off.

Another one who doesn't understand that the reason we're in this sh1t in the first place is due to the WTO and 'free trade'.

Glow Ball Billionaires get richer, everyone else relatively gets poorer.

At least now we know exactly who The Bullingdon Boys are working for. The pretense is gone.

You mean like your bankster chums David?

Globalisation is the process whereby the remnants of the benefits of imperialism are stripped from the residents of former colonial powers in countries which have not been able to adapt to competition.

[Pole]

Our problem isn't globalism. Our problem is that we have built up an unsustainable bubble in house prices, massive debt dependency, we have a poor industrial policy, we have public spending which delivers very poor value for money and we have allowed ourselves to fall into a benefits trap where working pays less than not working for too many people.

And who gave us the cheap money??? Small independent local banks? Nope, we invited globally interconnected beasts to our hen house.

The anti-globalsm arguement seems to think that our cross border activities are the root of our problems and that slapping on a few tarrifs will solve the problem and magically let us sustain a lifetyle beyond the value of what we produce. They are wrong : the solution to our problems lie internally and not externally.

Becuase of globalism we don't produce anymore.

Trying to deflect attention to the root causes of the problem by arguing about how we divide economic output while losing sight of the fact that our economic potential is shrinking smacks of fiddling while Rome is burning.

Rome burnt beacuse it wanted to expand endlessly. Therefore, we don't need global expansion. Less is more.

[PopGun]

Globalisation is the process whereby the remnants of the benefits of imperialism are stripped from the residents of former colonial powers in countries which have not been able to adapt to competition.

My problem with globalisation is the same as my problem with bacon!

The UK government insist in regulating Pig farmers in this country. This is to ensure health and safety, quality and a basic standard of livestock welfare etc. And imo rightly so. Strangely however, they don't insist on these same standards of quality and animal well being from pork meat imported from other countries. Bizzare but true.

This of course instantly puts the Brit pig farmer in an enormous price/competition disadvantage compared to the cheaper more mass produced/intensively farmed meat from abroad. Global competitors who are not financially handicapped by such regulation in their respected countries.

I think you get an idea where this long winded analogy is going. If Blair/Brown/Cameron etc decide on our behalf’s on joining some global free (not fair) trade w4nk fest, they could at least make sure we’re best placed to compete within it.

Condemning us with High tax and living costs in a (predominantly) low wage global labour market was never a great strategy. They can’t have it both ways.

p.s. buy British Bacon!

[Riedquat]

Becuase of globalism we don't produce anymore.

Because of hypocricy we don't produce any more - the hypocricy that means we draft laws making it unacceptable to utilise low wages / working conditions etc. but being perfectly happy to buy goods from other countries that don't meet those standards. Without that globalisation might result in the efficient use of what resources various parts of the world have (although that would also require the avoidance of anyone getting too big and screwing the system for their own gain, so fat chance).

[LuckyOne]

My problem with globalisation is the same as my problem with bacon!

The UK government insist in regulating Pig farmers in this country. This is to ensure health and safety, quality and a basic standard of livestock welfare etc. And imo rightly so. Strangely however, they don't insist on these same standards of quality and animal well being from pork meat imported from other countries. Bizzare but true.

This of course instantly puts the Brit pig farmer in an enormous price/competition disadvantage compared to the cheaper more mass produced/intensively farmed meat from abroad. Global competitors who are not financially handicapped by such regulation in their respected countries.

I think you get an idea where this long winded analogy is going. If Blair/Brown/Cameron etc decide on our behalf’s on joining some global free (not fair) trade w4nk fest, they could at least make sure we’re best placed to compete within it.

Condemning us with High tax and living costs in a (predominantly) low wage global labour market was never a great strategy. They can’t have it both ways.

p.s. buy British Bacon!

I try to buy local goods from local shops whenever possible.

I see this as a voluntary tax that I am willing to pay.

I am clearly in a minority though.

[Pole]

Because of hypocricy we don't produce any more - the hypocricy that means we draft laws making it unacceptable to utilise low wages / working conditions etc. but being perfectly happy to buy goods from other countries that don't meet those standards. Without that globalisation might result in the efficient use of what resources various parts of the world have (although that would also require the avoidance of anyone getting too big and screwing the system for their own gain, so fat chance).

Globalisation means lack of control. Unless of course the introduce the global government...

Also globalisation (free for all) kills local ownership and local patriotism. Nothing belongs to anyone anymore, and everyone has to adjust to one global lifestyle model...

[fluffy666]

Tory/Lab/Con = same party same policies.

Haven't people worked that out yet? It's all a game.

Calling for free trade then putting carbon taxes etc on their own countries to make them less competitive (Don't hold your breath waitinf for China or India to introduce carbon tax) at a time when cheap imports flood in destroying what is left of industry and services.

When was the last time a UK politician worked FOR that country rather than against it?

Well, you could tax imports based on their carbon footprint, and add a 'dictatorship levy' for imports from non-democratic countries (China, Wales, etc).

As far as politicians go, seems that selling your country out pays better. Ask Mr Blair, although I think he was giving rather than selling.

[PopGun]

I try to buy local goods from local shops whenever possible.

I see this as a voluntary tax that I am willing to pay.

I am clearly in a minority though.

I wouldn't view it as paying a voluntary tax, but rather the gain of carbon credits.

One of the biggest lefty environmentalists I know refuses to understand the compounding negative economic and environmental effects of shopping at Primark.

Anyway, imho the only way globalisation can work for the vast majority is a global worldwide government deploying a one size fits all model. The implications of which are quite terrifying to say the very least.

[Britney's Piers]

Globalisation will never work. Basic game theory - the first one to betray the group benefits the most, so it never gets off the ground.

Will the Chinese Premier come out at this World Forum and tell us "The world doesn't owe China a manufacturing base, we will float our currency"? No he won't, Asia will continue to sit on massive forex reserves while the west goes into debt. Western policymakers are either treacherous or very naive to support globalisation when places like China and Japan are so obviously taking us for a ride.

[HPC001]

"In establishing a free economic system for the United States, the Framers mandated free trade among all the states in the union. They spelled this out in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution:

'No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.'

"At 54 words, this was the original North American Free Trade Agreement....The 1994 agreement that goes by that name makes a travesty of free trade."

-- Robert Batemarco, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-managed-trade-is-not-free-trade/

"Free trade cannot exist in the context of global oligopolies."

-- Laura Carlsen, http://www.progress.org/2003/fpif35.htm

[PopGun]

Globalisation will never work. Basic game theory - the first one to betray the group benefits the most, so it never gets off the ground.

Will the Chinese Premier come out at this World Forum and tell us "The world doesn't owe China a manufacturing base, we will float our currency"? No he won't, Asia will continue to sit on massive forex reserves while the west goes into debt. Western policymakers are either treacherous or very naive to support globalisation when places like China and Japan are so obviously taking us for a ride.

Imagine China and India, engaging in a bit of Prisoner's Dilemma?

[LuckyOne]

I wouldn't view it as paying a voluntary tax, but rather the gain of carbon credits.

One of the biggest lefty environmentalists I know refuses to understand the compounding negative economic and environmental effects of shopping at Primark.

Anyway, imho the only way globalisation can work for the vast majority is a global worldwide government deploying a one size fits all model. The implications of which are quite terrifying to say the very least.

I dislike the fact that I can buy a carbon offset for air travel on BA's website for about 1/4 of the carbon tax imposed on my flights by the government (give or take, I don't remember the exact numbers from the last trip that I booked).

It is a bit disingenuous of BA to try to entice me to pay again when I am already paying the government 4x the fair market value of my carbon emissions when I fly.

[Pindar]

Globalisation was always doomed to fail. The whole system is insane since it is based on perpetual consumption and growth and the pursuit of money. The world has finite resources in terms of energy and minerals but there is enough land to feed everyone. Basic human needs can already be met if it wasn't for greed and the pursuit of profit over the happiness and wellbeing of human beings. The architects of the system must know that it's in its death throes.

[Pole]

The architects of the system must know that it's in its death throes.

That's why Cameron calls for more globalism to fix failing globalism.

Excatly how he differs from Brown - I can't see... Both are bank-serving globalists who care little about British interests.

[hedgefunded]

What with this and Egypt switching off the net, Alex Jones will be having an embalism. (I don't know what that is but I think there was one in Total Recall)

[LuckyOne]

That's why Cameron calls for more globalism to fix failing globalism.

Excatly how he differs from Brown - I can't see... Both are bank-serving globalists who care little about British interests.

Any trading system has winners and losers.

In protectionist systems, the losers are consumers and those in sectors that have a comparitive advantage. The winners are the political class and closed labour market systems.

In open systems, the losers are those in sectors which do not enjoy a comparitive advantage and the political class and those in closed labour market systems. The winners are consumers and those in sectors which enjoy a comparitive advantage.

I prefer open systems as they reduce the power of the political class. I also think that the net benefits of an open system should be shared with those in uncompetitive sectors (over a rational and relatively short adjustment period) who will need to learn new skills or see a decline in their standard of living.

Finally, I agree that open systems need to truly be open. Allowing the Chinese, the Indians and others to manipulate their markets while giving them access to open systems elsewhere is economically nonsensical.

Closed and protectionist systems are not in the British interest. Allowing other countries to benefit from open systems while being closed and protectionist markets themselves is also not in Britain's best interest.

[wonderpup]

Our problem isn't globalism. Our problem is that we have built up an unsustainable bubble in house prices, massive debt dependency, we have a poor industrial policy, we have public spending which delivers very poor value for money and we have allowed ourselves to fall into a benefits trap where working pays less than not working for too many people.

Then to make working more attractive why not increase wages?

Ah- but you can't do that, can you- in a globalised economy. So the solution is to make most people work for less.

The truth is that we do not have a globalised world- that implies roughly similar standards of living everywhere. What we have is mercantilists on one side and corporatists on the other.

Cameron seems to have emerged from a cognitive deep freeze in which the last few years never happened for him- so he mindlessly regurgitates the dogma that led to the meltdown.

The bubble in house prices was itself a symptom of the dysfunctional arrangement where the Chinese lend us their savings so that we can get the credit to inflate the bubbles that drive the sales of the products produced by their low paid workforce.

So China is Sparta- the trade warrior state of maximum production and minimal consumption. Then we become Sparta too- a world of frugal makers on subsistence wages and not a consumer in sight.

Great plan.

[NW11]

QUE!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Free Trade?

The UK is full of the laziest self obsessed, Victorian empire minded bunch of nonces our country have ever seen, legitimised by a generation of Labour.

What if tomorrow someone cut UK VISA into a hundred pieces and the banksters fled to Switzerland,

We already bailed them out, theyre home and dry and now they're footloose.

£2,000,000,000,000.00 debt? be thant on your own head, your kids heads and your grandkids head. More is spent on the UK army and Education than debt interest but its all ok.

No sense of what is coming in and what is going out. As long as house prices are rising its all good

[billybong]

Cameron really starting to sound like Dr Strangelove now or maybe that's just the bloke telling him what to say.

As for "The world doesn't owe us a living." how many £trillions of taxpayers and savers money have they bailed out to the bankers.

Edited January 28, 2011 by billybong