Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
your definition of free trade is not the one that is in effect. the one that is in effect stats that NO tarrifs shoul dbe in place when moving goods over the borders, if you want to argue about it the by all means good ahead, but these are the facts, the amercan gov threw an unfar level of taxes on canadian soft wood lumber. to the point where ist being taxed over 30% now that is unfair. Canada appealed to the WTO which ruled in canada's favour, NAFTA is also doing its own investigation and is likely to rule in favour of canada. If your definition was correct both of these international bodies would not be ruling in canada's favor.
and find me a source for your definition of free trade i am very curious to see one that states that a government can put what ever tax they want on product coming in to the country.
What do you think we did prior to WTO and NAFTA? Without them, governments are free to do as they wish in regards to taxes and tarrifs. WTO and NAFTA are relatively new entities. The US should NEVER have been a signatory to these agreements, along with GAAT.
I'm not debating today's rules are being violated. I'm arguing that we are not in a true free trade economy. A governing body that regulates how it's members trade is by definition NOT a free trade entity. There is no absence of rules or regulations in the WTO.
Defining free trade as an absence of rules and then espousing the virtues of WTO and NAFTA are mutually exclusive.