Slashdot Mirror

China has no unfair trade practices.

You mean except for currency manipulation, import/export restrictions, forex controls, foreign ownership restrictions, government subsidies, government ownership of businesses, and a fistful of other shady practices?

While I wouldn't claim the US is pure as snow either let's not pretend that China the nation state doesn't act on behalf of Chinese companies.

Actually trade is not done between nations, but between companies.

A) Governments purchase goods too and a lot of them, both foreign and domestic. B) Nation states are HEAVILY involved in international trade. If you think otherwise you don't understand the topic adequately.

Retaliatory tariffs work only against one or two players. If everybody starts taxing the US goods (and why wouldn't they?) then retaliation will amount to protectionist barriers. And this simply will push the US further into obsolescence.

US actually exports quite a lot of stuff ( https://2016.export.gov/ ). So yep, it'll hurt.

Photovoltaic panels are exempt from RoHS. Consider yourself better informed now...

RoHS exempts photovoltaic panels.

In that case, the EU is violating the treaty. Claims brought against US organizations are supposed to be heard in the US. This ruling was made in the EU, which is actually in violation of the treaty because it's a claim against a US organization.

I suspect the treaty situation isn't anywhere near as clear cut as that. Those agreements are riddled with exceptions.

Ask and ye shall receive. "In the event either Contracting Party applies quantitative restrictions to certain products originating in or exported to any third country or region, it shall afford to all like products originating in or exported to the other country treatment which is equitable to that afforded to such third country or region." Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Besides, every single one of those treaties, like our Constitution, is not a suicide pact. The President has said "national security" and every one of those documents is trumped. If We The People don't like it we can, through our Representatives, impeach, amend the constitution or march on Washington with pitchforks.

Yes, we can also commit mass suicide too. That doesn't mean we should. The President can say "national security" all he wants, but all I have to reply with is "Impeach" and that problem goes away pretty fast. What's your point in all of this? You're discussing theoreticals. My post was about actualities -- the actual facts are that China-US trade is critical to the stability of the global markets. 17% of China's exports are to the United States. We're their #1 destination. Why would they choose to fuck that up? And if we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot on this, wouldn't it behoove us to have somewhat more conclusive proof than a Fox News scareisode about how the Chinese want to destroy us all with their backdoors of mass destruction?

You have as your premise some deep respect for all these treaties and agreements. I believe most of these documents, particularly the trade agreements, are products of narrow interests creating special conditions for their exclusive benefit.

Okay, my turn: "Citation needed" Belief is not a rational basis from which to decide economic policy.

I believe most of them amount to throwing open the ports and hobbling the port authorities to flood the US with stuff from places with no EPA, OSHA, NLRB, IRS, etc. I do not share your reverence for that crap.

Again, prove it. They may not have an EPA, an OSHA, and NLRB, an IRS, or a bunch of other three and four letter acronym'd agencies, but none of that matters. Do the products meet specification, or don't they? If they do, let them in. If not, send them back. This is a very simple policy decision to make, and it requires no reverence, or belief.

The story says she was Tasered when she came in to pick up phones she had already ordered on line. So she was rightfully demanding that the store fulfill an obligation to her.

As for "unauthorized export", that has no meaning in state law, and state cops have no authority in that area. There are some Federal restrictions, but they involve mostly the few countries the US still doesn't get along with, like Cuba and North Korea. You can ship all the iPhones you want to China as far as the US is concerned. Importing into China is difficult, much more so than importing into the US. But that's enforced at China customs processing. Not by some mall cop.

You absolutely WRONG. I suppose you haven't heard of the Safe Habor program. Please educate yourself before posting any additional comments on this matter.

Nope, the USA (really IT lobbies) has a special deal with the EU where we can use your data as if its in the EU but without the same laws applying. Its called Safe Harbor

Whatever "lobbying" was being done previously, it seems to have been completely effective. Many countries have signed, without dispute, so-called "free" trade agreements which essentially codify every US-corporate-friendly dream that could be devised by the Bushites - including DMCA-ish and software patent provisions, to speak of 2 issues in the IT area. In non-IT areas, similar capitulations are even worse. Pharmaceuticals, agriculture, all get twisted into poisonous American corporatised pretzels, to pave the way for overpriced patent drugs and monstrosities such as GM products (which should be flat-out illegal anywhere). It's as if the "sovereign" countries didn't even read the agreements, let alone take heed of the public outry that always accompanies them.

It must be so easy for them, when the signatories are Bush-puppet governments such as the Howard government in Australia (thankfully rejected at last) and Harper (which malignancy we should pray is thrown out tomorrow, or at least held safely to a minority).

Let's be honest. "Globalisation" never meant anything more or less than "America buys your stuff cheap, you buy America's stuff dear". The world does not need Wal-Mart, Microsoft, McDonald's, or any other substandard, exploitative American brand. The height of absurdity is Wal-Mart selling rice to Indians. What do the Wal-Marts in China sell? Crappy plastic Chinese crap back to the Chinese? The whole concept is absurd. What is Wal-Mart even doing in Canada?

The ultimate irony is that those tilting the playing field towards the USA, and who would most vehemently deny the insuperable insult to sovereignty that these agreements represent, also claim to believe in a "free market" - the Bushites, the Reaganites, the Friedmanites, the corrupt fuckwads, the ignorant lying Sarah and Todd Palins, the criminal Cons and neo-Cons whose chickens, we hope, are coming home to roost at last. If you're wondering why you're having trouble competing - maybe it's because you're not competitive! Top example - Microsoft can't compete on merit. They have to be anti-competitive; and you betcha they love them some FTA help. Pity they got caught at it.

But perhaps as the world wises the hell up, we finally see some logic in Bush's response: More lobbying. "Bring it on", in the Texan moron's famous catchphrase: Just expect more pushback!

But we'd prefer if you'd just Bugger off.

You are wrong. Google data centers fulfill the EU Safe Harbor Directive, as stated in the Safe Harbor homepage at the US Department of Commerce Export site. It's perfectly safe for EU companies to have their data stored in Google's servers.

You are wrong. Google data centers fulfill the EU Safe Harbor Directive, as stated in the Safe Harbor homepage at the US Department of Commerce Export site. It's perfectly safe for EU companies to have their data stored in Google's servers.

This issue has been running for a long time. In particular the different attitudes to the privacy of individuals' data in the US and the EU has blocked a lot of data being transferred from the EU to the US. This isn't the Patriot Act - the linked article dates back to before that was enacted. As an EU citizen I like it that my personal data can't just be bundled up and sold on from one company to another without my permission.

However, there are provisions under the Safe Harbour rules that allow data to be transferred to the US, so this shouldn't be a complete block to development or outsourcing. As long as companies, and government agencies, agree to abide by the rules. If they don't want to, that's their choice.

IP is the principal export of the US? That's funny, because from what I've read, the number one export of the US is: 84--NUCLEAR REACTORS, BOILERS, MACHINERY ETC.; PARTS

Feel free to correct me though. In the meantime, you just can't put a dollar value on hypocrisy and blind nationalism... truly our nation's number one export.

They can get your data this way, but only if they themselves obey *the rest* of the data protection directive. I'm thinking here of bits like Article 12, where you can ask for all data held about you, have it corrected, deleted etc. Its not consent to use for any purpose, its consent to use for a limited purpose. The bit of the directive you're referring to is there to allow (eg) a mortgage company to check your credit worthiness with Equifax; this limited purpose is stated in the contract you sign. Asking for unlimited purpose would be unfair as in Article 3 of 93/13/EEC (in US terms, unconscionable as in UCC 2-302) and the contract might end up void.

*That* is the problem with the data going to the states; and ways around it already exist, but apparently costs too much when applied to the kind of scrutiny currently levelled at US citizens.

IANAL. YMMV.

I had no idea I was also "U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Chief Deputy Democratic Whip" (as referenced in the GGP post), I guess it was me on my U.S. Representative web site that compiled that list of quotes from the administration. Otherwise, if I wasn't also Jan, then I wouldn't have been "The only person making inferences...". Nevermind the fact that I am also obviously slashdot user "NMerriam (15122)", as it was s/he who made the original comment. Damn, I must be schizophrenic. Thanks for the info!

You have inferred that Bush is just about the worst person on earth

Actually, no. I have simply inferred (to you and you alone I guess, as it was not my original intent) the W "is just about the worst [president] on earth". It that case, I'd have to agree with myself (but which myself? the Jan myself, or the NMerriam myself? Fuck, this is confusing).

which you know isn't true

Actually, none of the me's are positive about that point.

and you can't offer any support for that argument

(Neverminding the fact that that was not *my* argument) You are so right, I offered absolutely no support for that argument what-so-ever. Silly me, I thought we were talking about W's (and HIS administrations) references to the Iraqi's footing part of the bill. I apologize. Excellent use of the NeoCon-ish-ness "demean your critics, divert the debate and ignore the issues", well played!

I have showed you concrete numbers, yet the OBVIOUSNESS of everything still isn't getting into your skull.

To paraphrase W (and yes, I lived in Texas) - "There's an old saying in Tennessee... well, it's an old saying in Texas, I believe also in Tennessee. Actions [pauses] speak louder then [pauses] government documentation on a National Development Strategy authored more then 2 years after the invasion was 'complete'". Shouldn't that have been done BEFORE the invasion? Or at least very soon there after? Or am I a "dick" to assume some leadership in a war that "we" "choose".
Have there been elections? Yes. Have they represented the population? Depends on if your a Sunni, Kurd or Shiite. We've killed 30,000 of them (W's numbers, not mine), is that considered progress? Guess that depends on if your PWT, KKK, or NeoCon.

You're not even a very smart liberal man, why bother?

I enjoy a bit of intellectual masturbation every once in a while. Besides, since I don't go to church, I don't have a clergy thinking for me, so I guess that makes me more dumber two.

Some guys can hold their ground, but I've reduced you to this? Sad.

Let's take score, shall we?

You referenced 1 document authored by the Republic of Iraq, Iraqi Strategic Review Board, Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation to support your position.

I referenced the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Associated Press/Ex-President Jimmy Carter, The Washington Post, CNN, San Francisco Gate, and U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky's website (which itself references NYT, Reuters, The Washington Post, House Budget Committee, Congressional Testimony, CNBC, White House Press Briefings, House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplem

Here dude! Check it out: http://www.export.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_development_st rategy_063005.pdf read the first part about economic development.

Those are the Iraqi dinars hard at work. What're you talkin about? That is Bush's BABY right there, he's snuggling Iraq, trying to give them a good home. Give the man a little credit, sheesh. Put yourself in his shoes. Seriously, you need to lighten up and look at things with a rational eye. I would certainly hesitate to think that Bill Clinton would have been so cruel as to steal money from another country! Bill Clinton's problem is he saw too much that could go wrong in Iraq, he fought wars from the air as a matter of policy. I think that is a recurring trend among Democrats, given their base supporters, who cringe at the thought of any American's dieing. That's the simple truth. The rest is just bullshit designed to keep voters grounded in the party. Of course some criticism is good, but this argument is just ridiculous.

Intenational trade is a funny thing, it's international and if you think that "It will hurt them more than the US because the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies." then what about rest of the world? China, Brazil, EU... do the math. http://tse.export.gov/MapFrameset.aspx?MapPage=NTD MapDisplay.aspx&UniqueURL=5dezjw55po1hcj553d3g023t -2005-10-23-15-44-25 Trade

2004
US imports $255,927,945,545 in goods from Canada
US exports $189,101,254,591 in goods to Canada

Total US Exports 2004 = $817,935,848,814
Total US Imports 2004 = $1,469,670,757,223
(USD)

Canada and Mexico make up over 1/3 of US Exports. The top ten countries take 2/3 of US Exports (per 2004 figures)

As for Imports, Mexico drops to #3 on the list and China moves up to #2 behind Canada. The US imports roughly 28% of its imports from Canada and Mexico.

Kordaff

The sad thing is that it appears that the lesson learned there has been forgotten. Can you imagine what the world would be like today, if the US had, instead of invading Iraq, chosen to bring the Marshall Plan to Afganistan?

Not only would the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people been improved (an absolute good in of itself) an America that chose to treat Afganistan benevolently, that rebuilt industry and infrastructure and got the country cleaned up and back on its feet, would have torn the heart out of the support base for the people who attacked the US in the first place. It's hard to get people to hate the guy whose making your life better....
Hmm, true, I guess we have no effort by the military/govt to rebuild Iraq or Afghanistan; maybe the Iraqi/Afghani terrorists hate us because of their religion instead of the infrastructure improvements.

The sad thing is that it appears that the lesson learned there has been forgotten. Can you imagine what the world would be like today, if the US had, instead of invading Iraq, chosen to bring the Marshall Plan to Afganistan?

Not only would the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people been improved (an absolute good in of itself) an America that chose to treat Afganistan benevolently, that rebuilt industry and infrastructure and got the country cleaned up and back on its feet, would have torn the heart out of the support base for the people who attacked the US in the first place. It's hard to get people to hate the guy whose making your life better....
Hmm, true, I guess we have no effort by the military/govt to rebuild Iraq or Afghanistan; maybe the Iraqi/Afghani terrorists hate us because of their religion instead of the infrastructure improvements.

TrustE's Watchdog Reports invariably results in a decision of "Issue Handled with no changes necessary to the Privacy Statement nor the Site". They get about a hundred complaints per month, but don't do anything. The last time TrustE made a site change anything was in 2002.

In the early days of TrustE, their seal actually meant something. But they've totally sold out.

There's also the Commerce Department's "Safe Harbor" list. No enforcement action has ever been taken under that.

So don't believe any "privacy certifications" associated with RFID tag use. They're meaningless.

Not exactly there is something called a safe harbour the information about EU citizens being in the system was something that was negotiated later.

What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate.

Considering the EU managed to force America's hand over data protection and the safe harbour (not to mention steel tariffs) it is a surprise they backed down over this as they know they can win these issues especially as CAPPS lowers security.

that it does not reciprocate. I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.

Don't worry they will once enough people complain about it and someone looks into the security aspect.

Personal data may be taken out of the EU/EEA only if without prejudice to compliance with the national provisions adopted pursuant to the other provisions of this Directive, the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection. (EU Personal Data Directive 95/46/EC, Article 25). See here for whole Directive.

The United States is not a third country that the EU has determined to provide an adequate level of protection of personal data. However, if the individual companies or organizations in the US adhere to the Safe Harbor agreement, personal data may be transferred.

Unfortunately, it can ultimately be difficult to control that data once it gets to the US. A in Europe may determine that B in the US provides adequate protection via Safe Harbor. All is well, right? Not necessarily. What happens when B subcontracts to C, who subcontracts to D, who subcontracts to E, who subcontracts to F in country G where privacy laws don't exist? Yeah sure, there are rules, but if something were to happen, there would be more finger-pointing and "you weren't supposed to..." and the such, as opposed to taking on responsibility. But nonetheless, your personal data has been compromised. All the bickering in the world won't resolve that matter.

You must not be an American, because if you were you'd know that the Republicans have all but erased any semblance of a surplus that Clinton left us with.

Sure, many economists believe that in a faltering economy it is the government's responsibility to increase spending to "pick up the slack", but Bush has gotten out of control, spending $100B+ on war (apparently it costs San Francisco about $284M alone). Not to mention the human cost of course.

And, oh, the war did bring some great amount of wealth to America. In the form of contracts to big American corporations. So altruistic.

So running a deficit isn't a big deal, as long as you have good credit and you can finance the interest (or equivalent). It doesn't seem that Bush is doing us any favors by running up a deficit and hurting our credibility globally.

Your congress(wo)man

Not sure they would pay much attention to a letter from a British citizen living in France. Which of course is one of the problems with attacking the people sending the spams.

The U.S. economy has got a lot to lose vis-à-vis UK & France either: being considered a spam haven jeopardizes every country's role as a trading partner of Europe since Directive 95/46/EC: This is an issue that does matter to the US, and the administration is taking it very seriously, because losing Safe Harbor status (which was not easy to obtain in the first place, given the state -or in many sectors rather: lack- of U.S. privacy law) simply means this:

(56) Whereas cross-border flows of personal data are necessary to the expansion of international trade; whereas the protection of individuals guaranteed in the Community by this Directive does not stand in the way of transfers of personal data to third countries which ensure an adequate level of protection; whereas the adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the transfer operation or set of transfer operations;
(57) Whereas, on the other hand, the transfer of personal data to a third country which does not ensure an adequate level of protection must be prohibited;

So, do write your letters/make your calls (up to the equivalent of $20, everyone!) to the representatives and senators now (even more so as a U.S. citizen of course) and I'm pretty sure you will get a reply, and get the right people concerned about the problem (it also seems to have worked the other way round as e.g. Americans announced to spamblock European sites when the a misguided committee of the European Parliament prepared to legalize spam by adopting an "opt-out" scheme earlier this year).

However, in an interesting twist of ethics and morals, there are registered secrets ((trade secrets ) that are essentially the same thing as patents without the benefit to the general public (the military is not so restricted), except you can get sued something ugly for going public and trying to patent or use someone else's *secret* process no matter how original you though you were. Trying to prove you didn't get it from the owners of the *secret* technology is not very easy.

Considering how *new discovery* dependant Computer Science and its derived engineering disciplines are at this time, the ethical nature of I.P. and patenting are still under debate. Just look at the whole Open Source initiative: it almost tries to return the original meaning of copyright (protection of attribution) to the current twisted definition (protection of money). In both cases, the majority is hurt by the expansion of rights to the individual (i.e. corporation) whereas the individual only gets a small conjectured advantage (majority of patents are never actually implemented, just registered and defended (yet another source of income not derived from meaningful work)). Not a surprise for a system whose major originating proponent created such patents as the patent covering his *long arm* - a device that consists of a long pole with a grasping device at the end to help get books off tall shelves (even though such devices had been used for centuries by his contemporary farmers for occasional chores.)

"The fact that it works is immaterial,"

L. Ogborn.