Morning Ag Clips “U.S. takes action vs. Canadian wine trade measures” by USDA

Name:

Course:

Date:

Journal Entries

27/5/2018 Morning Ag Clips “U.S. takes action vs. Canadian wine trade measures” by USDA

Canada has placed wine measures that don not favour other international wine producers. For instance, British Colombia has a law that excludes all imported wine from the grocery stores. This has raised an alarm to the U.S and other countries since Canada is one of the major markers for United States wine makers. According to Secretary Perdue, they want British Colombians to be given an opportunity to buy wine from the U.S as a great wine producer. The idea of Canada having regulations that discriminate against the U.S is unfair and won’t be tolerated.

The government of the United States through Donald Trump’s administration has requested WTO (World Trade Organisation) to create a dispute settlement panel that will investigate the move taken by Canada and help solve the issue. According to the article Canadian wine measures are against the laws and provisions of WTO thus the government is going to fight for its rights. Wine makers in the U.S gain most of its income from the international sales and when Canada is trying to regulate wine sales in the groceries it means that this is a loss to the U.S wine makers. The reason for requesting the WTO to come in is because in 2017 the U.S held meetings with Canada on the same issue but it was not resolved.

In my own opinion the direction taken by Canada is unfair to other outside markets. The provisions of WTO allow for even trade measures thus Canada needs to adhere to this fact. Canada has its export products and it will be bad for the countries locked away by the wine measure to stop receiving goods from Canada. On the other hand, this is the only way Canada can do to boost local wine sales since imported wine seem to gain more market than local wine. Thus Canada need to revisit their wine measures of restricting sales of imported wine in groceries but have a limit so that both the international and local markets are not affected.

https://www.morningagclips.com/u-s-takes-action-vs-canadian-wine-trade-measures/17/10/2017 CBC News “U.S. makes ‘aggressive’ demands to access Canadian dairy market, wants end to supply management” by Katie Simpson.

The article is about U.S aggressiveness of seeking ten times of what Canada agreed to give up in the TTP. Canada has a protected dairy market that the U.S wants it to be opened and termination within a decade of supply management that protects Canada’s industry. The motive behind this is to widen the producers market in the U.S. the president of the U.S farmers said that they are not in shock since the demands made by the U.S are similar to the demands made in the other sector. CBC news has learned that the idea of the U.S requesting for transparency might be used to gather information that will be used against Canada later. From the article two sources say that the U.S is using this demand as a way of gathering data that will be used against Canada in a tribunal case of the supply management system. U.S demand for market access may be a way of presenting a full vision of renegotiating NAFTA.

In my own opinion if Canada grants the U.S its demand they will be at risk of losing their dairy markets and U.S market will gain a wider producers market. The U.S is on the run demanding a lot from Canada just like the first article of asking Canada to revisit its wine measures thus the U.S might be at a trade war with Canada in the near future. It seems the U.S doesn’t want Canada to have a protected marked with the fear of losing sales from the Canadian market. Market transparency might be risky since through transparency a lot of information can be leaked to the competitor. It is upon Canada to weigh the advantages and disadvantages before granting the U.S its demands.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/united-states-dairy-market-demands-1.43568405/4/2018 The Guardian “How a US-China trade war would hurt us all” by Linda Yueh.

Creating trade barriers will damage the world at large and not only china and the U.S will be affected. Trade barrier will have product and serviced increase in price and also the global supply chain will be interrupted. China and the U.S currently are having tit for tat exchange tariffs which might lead to a trade war in a few years’ time. The Trump administration announced the imposition of tariffs on a range of Chinese products, china responded to this by having tariffs on U.S imports. Possibly the next step will be to restrict Chinese investment in America and if so then China will give a similar response. This tit for tat game, will be damaging both countries since companies such as Apple have invested in the two. If china and the U.S do not come to the table for an agreement more trade barriers will be seen not only in them but other countries too.

In my opinion the battle between china and USA is aimed at no good and the two super power countries can continue with their tit for tat game but they have to put in mind the economy of other countries that will be affected with their trade war. Third world countries depend so much of the super power countries and if they create barriers and trade tariffs among themselves then it will be difficult for the developing countries. The U.S.A has an aim to distract the made in china 2025 plan which is aimed at making china manufacturing globally. U.S.A and China need to sit and table their issues come to an agreement and solve their trade disputes thus enhancing peace.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/05/us-china-trade-war-supply-chains-consumers25/11/2017 Emerald Insight “Conflict, international trade and President Trump’s isolationist policies” by Yusuf Ayotunde AbdulkareemThe article stats by explaining President Trump’s policies that aim at showing reminiscent of the era of the smooth Hawley tariff of the 1930s. the article is a research paper that shows hoe Trumps administration has uneasy relationship with other governments which is going to harm the U.S economy. The idea of isolates is seen not to work yet President Trump has embraced such policies. The article compares current regime in America to that of the 1930s which was characterized by isolationism. There is tension in international trade and this is linked to the conflict that the U.S is having with other super powers majorly china. Trump’s isolationist policies are certainly going to harm the USA in the long run and a big part of that is because of the personality of the President himself.

In my own opinion the paper by Yusuf takes the right direction of research in international trade and conflict. It is true that isolationism ideas will never impact a country positively but rather the country’s economy will be affected since economy is boosted by international trade. America has tensions with other countries and from the previous article this tensions are creating bad relationship and soon there will be a trade war between china and the U.S.A. Isolating from the other countries will make U.S. A’s economy to go down since even other developing countries might not want to associate with a country that detaches from other super powers. Thus countries need to work together to enhance peace, share ideologies and promote international trade which will in turn boost economy.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JITLP-07-2017-002413/8/2018 The Guardian” Is Free Trade Always the Answer” by Richard Partington.

Concerns continue to increase over Donald Trump’s import tariffs as ministers negotiate Britain’s trading with Europe. Free trade allows free flow of goods along international boarders without being taxed which generates wealth. Free trade has lifted a lot of people around the world out of poverty. Cheaper labor costs appear to be giving china an added advantage over western countries in the manufacturing sector. The main ideology behind import tariffs in to make imported good a bit expensive than local goods thus promoting the local manufacturers. Countries in the WTO signed up an agreement to keep their tariffs to a certain limit, U.S is a major driving force but Trump view this membership as a disaster. According to the economists’ international competition ushers in innovations. The existing U.S tariffs according to economists might trigger job losses and a weaker economic growth.

In my own opinion the idea of free trade is good since it boosts economic growth and creates wealth for the poor communities. Imposing tariffs on imported goods might seem effective for the short term period but long term effects are negative. Increasing import duty in the US might lead to countries withdrawing from selling their goods in America which will be a loss to the country. Members of the WTO need to embrace the terms and limits they signed up for till when new limits are agreed by the whole membership. Also free trade is good since it makes imported goods cheaper and affordable thus promoting international trade and a country having a diversity of goods. When having taxes on imports it will affect international trade and in the long run there will be product monopoly in the country.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/13/is-free-trade-always-the-answer14/1/2017 The Guardian. “Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries” by Jackson Hickel.

Research shows that developing countries send trillions to the west than the other way round. We have always known that the first world countries give the developing countries to help eradicate poverty. The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics a few months contradicted this with the idea that the flow of money from rich countries to the third world countries pales in the comparison to the flow that run the other direction. The statement means that rich countries are not developing poor countries but it is the other way round. Through invoice faking multinational companies from the first world countries get a way to steal from the poor countries. They do so by shifting also the developed countries take advantage and give the poor countries loans on interests which the loans become huge thus difficult to pay yet the interests continue to build up. The developing countries end up paying a huge debt that what they borrowed thus making these countries rich.

In my own opinion developing countries need generosity from the developed countries and not them taking advantage and stealing from them. It is true that developing countries are making rich countries richer since for over a decade we have not seen a big improvement from the third world countries yet the first world countries continue to emerge competing to be super powers. There have been reports of countries having hug debts by world bank yet the richer countries continue to give them funds and later go to exploit resources in the developing countries. Developing countries need justice and if possible they could be given debt reliefs to help them pick up a fresh.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries