Since the U.S. and its developed* country counterparts do not wish to diminish their billion dollar a day farming subsidies that hurt developing world farmers, any hopes of free trade that the developing world needs is history, and so is our hopes of free trade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/business/worldbusiness/30trade.html?ref=world*I wrote developing instead which obviously makes the statement awkward.
FREE TRADE IS NOT FAIR TRADE!!!!!! AHHH!!!
FREE TRADE WILL NOT ALLEVIATE POVERTY in developing countries; it will only hinder. Correct me if I'm wrong, (seriously), free trade is the eliminating of tariffs and trade barriers yes? So, the reasoning behind free trade is the idea that it will create a comparative advantage for those producers that are able to provide at lowest cost? Wouldn't that just drive a further wedge between the rich and poor? Wouldn't the small farmers of Nigeria be better off, if they didn't have to compete with outside competition from the developing countries? The small farmer is more vulnerable to market price no? Thus not weeping the advantages of free-trade as a developed country would. right? Free trade would only lead to further exploitation.
Look into "fair trade," which is a movement focused on creating security and economic self-sufficiency, for those in developing countries. (which on a side note is much like a subsidy). *ironic*
Fair trade are what your precious ngo's are striving to achieve. I personally don't believe in ngo's they are very limited in their efficiencies and abilities!! I am all about the shared corporation between International Governmental Organizations such as the UN, EU, WTO, and NGO's such as OxFam.
Ah well darling,
think of it this way: if something is worth doing, it is only worth doing well. This failure, will only lead to a different road toward success.
... No?
