Free Trade Talks (1 Viewer)

[cro_angel]

my business teacher said this today:
if we have free trade then america can charge what they want for drugs.. and we get alot from them and itll be bad because some people need to keep paying for a long time for their medication.. and if they can charge whatever they want then it will cost alot..
i think the reason they r pretty cheap at the moment is cuz of umm.. something called PBS? is that what its called..
someone can probably explain this better than i can, i need to pay more attention in class

 

[Alexander]

yeah. It a major thing the US opposes before commiting to free trade.
But one of the big-arse issues in the next US election is health care, so it's possible there'll be movement in that station, no matter the results.

 

[Bambul]

I don't know where your teacher got his/her information from bur Mark Vaile has repeatedly said that the PBS is off the bargaining table. The governemnt knows that PSB is too politically sensitive to change it in a way that makes it look like it is caving in to US pressures so it won't touch it in regard to an FTA. Pharmaceutical companies do charge what they want, then the government subsidises them, that's why they are cheap.

I'm not sure why you think a deal with USA is nothing compared to one with China. Considering that the US economy is about 10 times bigger than China's (and I'm not making that up, it is approx US$10 trillion vs US$1 trillion). Granted, Australia's trade is not proportional to those 2 amounts, but the US is still Australia's 2nd largest trading partner (after Japan) and there is almost no chance of Australia getting a free trade agreement with China in the short to medium term.

 

[jayz]

...the free trade agreement is currently been proposed to the american gov, i fink the US rejected the agricultural and sugar for free trade, , so what exactly can be free traded? (other than the cheap primary exports US will receive from AUS)

 

[Alexander]

its the beginning of the end i tells ya.
But yeah, it's not 'free'. It was probably bad timing, what with the US elections and all...i guess they wouldnt want to see US jobs being endangered by foreign agriculture...(phew)......ONLY in america what-what.

 

[White Rabbit]

I'm against it. The US will NEVER remove agriculture protection, leaving our local industry pretty ruined - what little protection they have will be forefit, but tariffs on their exported goods will remain. The only winner in the FTA would be America.

That, and the PBS? we get rid of that, and half the country is screwed.

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by White Rabbit
That, and the PBS? we get rid of that, and half the country is screwed.

Where the hell were you yesterday. The deal is signed it only has to get through the US congress, the PBS is remaining. The only agricultural industry in Australia that wont be better off (better off, not worse off) will be sugar growers who would be in the same position without a FTA.

 

[m1nx]

i guess you could say i'm for the fta, my 2c on the deal is that we'd be less screwed with it than without it. (this is the US we're talking about, as if it would let itself be wroughted~ it will ALWAYS have the upper hand).

perhaps I missed something, but I personally don't understand why there is so much fuss about the sugar industry- would its inclusion in the fta really make a difference to its decline?

 

[jayz]

the sugar industry decline, lol, go the drought!

having thought about the fta for a long time now, there's really a lot of arguments both for and against it. just imagine the many cheap goods aus consumers will hav access to, the competition the aus firms will face and as a result grow from, the market aus firms can engage in the US etc; on the other hand, aus will be swamped by American by products, affected by its economic trends and aus will further degrade in its cultural appeal

but really, considering the fact tis is one of the very few fta aus signed wif the US (correct me on tat, ), howard has done well, especially if u consider he is dealing wif the US and aus PBS is not on the extinct product list

 

[jayz]

lol, here r some small pieces on fta, http://www.abc.net.au/humouraustralia/stories/m777938.ram
http://www.abc.net.au/humouraustralia/stories/m580903.ram
(realplayer required)

 

[2003HSC]

Originally posted by m1nx
i guess you could say i'm for the fta, my 2c on the deal is that we'd be less screwed with it than without it. (this is the US we're talking about, as if it would let itself be wroughted~ it will ALWAYS have the upper hand).

perhaps I missed something, but I personally don't understand why there is so much fuss about the sugar industry- would its inclusion in the fta really make a difference to its decline?

well the sugar industry isnt doing too great and the fta would have given it a sencond chance to grow. economically though, the government probably did the best thing, excluding sugar to get the US to agree on other points i.e manufacturing which is going to have good long term benefits for the shape of Australian industry. But the other big deal on SUgar was also that the fta was agreed on like two days after Beatie's Labour win in the QLD state election (where all the sugar farmers are).

But seriously, who cares about the benefits to the US and Australia? This agreement is just another example of developed country's exploitation of globalisation and deception of the word 'free trade'. If world leaders are going to promote free trade as a way for developing countries to escape low incomes through growth/trade potential, they should be looking for agreements that distribute trade growth equitably, instead of being unfair and hypocritical. It's disgusting to see the greed in groups such as the US sugar industry or even Australian farmers, complaining of getting shafted by such a deal when underdeveloped nations face high tariffs on agricultural goods, the main area in which these countries have a comparative (relative to their economy anyway) advantage - the whole principle of globalisation. However it is the position of the US and Australia as established economies, that allow them to control and monopolise the direction and allocation of growth in the world (okay, the US to a much larger extent than australia). /rant

 

[Alexander]

I guess time will have to tell.
But, yeah, I agree that Howard is moving closer toward the Menzies/demi-god status. This is the proverbial ANZUS treaty, not technically gaining military assistance, but banking a good chance on it.

 

[jayz]

howard is getting poll bashed by latham, wat do u mean he has the upper hand?

VOTE LABOUR

 

[Alexander]

Latham wont win. You can quote me on that.
I think its a bit of an anti-climax the fta.

 

[MĔ]

depends really if latham will obey whatever secret messages the REAL people in power will order him to do. These real people are the fucken jewish lobby. just like in the US, the jewish lobby there control all the congressmen. dnt forget 'world leaders' are just the voice of the freemasons and just about every single person in a high position, such as the ceo of a bank or Parliament members are all freemasons, all working together for a common goal.

 

[Alexander]

RECKON! I thought i was the only one who noticed Jews and masons taking over the globe!...but I think you forgot to include the hordes of communists and tax-sucking mentally retarded.
We should start a club to celebrate our shared ideas...lets call it....the fourth reich.
For now, i think i'll just cross my fingers and use my superior white power to release latham from these scum.

But seriously, nothing's serious

 

[Mark Latham]

Bush's ass my WORK boot.

 

[Mr John Howard]

Oh Please are you going to start on that "making manly men for tomorrow" crap again.

Tomorrow come into parliament in Hard Yakka and your work booties. I dare you.

 

[Mark Latham]

Your on you homosexual (in a good way) egghead!

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

'No sugar, no deal'