Roberto Azevado — Reuters
An international agreement forecast to boost global trade by $1 trillion a year has come into force.
The Director General of the World Trade Organization, Roberto Azevedo, called it “the biggest reform of global trade in a generation”…
Mr Azevedo said it would have a bigger impact than eliminating all existing taxes on imports, known as tariffs.
It involves countries signing up to a long list of reforms, including easier access for businesses to information, reduced fees and simpler and faster procedures.
WTO economists estimated it would cut the cost of trading by 14.3%, and that developing nations would gain the most.
TFA is one of the few successes of a much wider set of negotiations that were launched in late 2001 in the Qatari capital and known as the Doha Round…
The TFA was finally agreed at a meeting in Bali 2013, but could not come into force until 110 countries had ratified it. That is what has now happened…
BTW, the United States ratified this Trade Agreement in January, 2015.
So, who’s gonna take credit if this is successful?
Who’s gonna get blamed if its a bust?
GO!
all this money divided into 110 countries(about 1/2 those of the world) is about 9 billion Dollars…per country.
AND WHOM in these countries is getting the money??
“developing nations would gain the most.”
And developed nations would get screwed the most.
YEP…
as even CHINA is getting TIRED of all the pollution..
They are building into Africa..
THINK they will HIRE local??? NOPE..
WE do the same thing..
FAKE!
I never saw WHO “ratified” this — just “110 countries.” No links. No citations from any other sources. Nothing about the “TFA” nor even a notable member of the WTO who agreed to it, let alone whoever the holdouts were. In other words, NO CREDIBILITY!
Sounds to me like the same lazy media not doing their homework while serving up more fear sandwich’s that, in turn, sell those ever important penis enlargement pills.
But even if this is true, the one question I still can’t shrug off is: WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I EVEN CARE?! It’s all about streamlining politics and big business (big enough to “trade” internationally). The only thing I know for sure is that even if this TFA saves “them” money, the prices I pay for my shit will most certainly NOT be coming down — ever! IOW, the rich get richer which is probably the whole point.
WOW
Nice rant.
Very Fake News
https://www.google.com/search?q=Trade+Facilitation+Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_facilitation
This looks really complicated. Is it good for average people or just for the big corporations? Who knows!
Looks like it’s real, though.
This blog’s still ssdd.
For the cool-aid drunk on the dtrump train.
http://www.tfafacility.org/ratifications
Ratified
Hong Kong, China R 08.12.2014
Singapore R 08.01.2015
United States of America R 23.01.2015
Mauritius R 05.03.2015
Malaysia R 26.05.2015
Japan R 01.06.2015
Australia R 09.06.2015
Botswana R 18.06.2015
Trinidad and Tobago R 27.07.2015
Korea, Republic of R 30.07.2015
Nicaragua R 04.08.2015
Niger R 06.08.2015
Chinese Taipei R 17.08.2015
Belize R 02.09.2015
Switzerland R 02.09.2015
China R 04.09.2015
Liechtenstein R 18.09.2015
Lao People’s Democratic Republic R 29.09.2015
New Zealand R 29.09.2015
Togo R 01.10.2015
Austria R 05.10.2015
Belgium R 05.10.2015
Bulgaria R 05.10.2015
Croatia R 05.10.2015
Cyprus R 05.10.2015
Czech Republic R 05.10.2015
Denmark R 05.10.2015
Estonia R 05.10.2015
Finland R 05.10.2015
France R 05.10.2015
Germany R 05.10.2015
Greece R 05.10.2015
Hungary R 05.10.2015
Ireland R 05.10.2015
Italy R 05.10.2015
Latvia R 05.10.2015
Lithuania R 05.10.2015
Luxembourg R 05.10.2015
Malta R 05.10.2015
Netherlands R 05.10.2015
Poland R 05.10.2015
Portugal R 05.10.2015
Romania R 05.10.2015
Slovak Republic R 05.10.2015
Slovenia R 05.10.2015
Spain R 05.10.2015
Sweden R 05.10.2015
Thailand R 05.10.2015
United Kingdom R 05.10.2015
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia R 19.10.2015
Pakistan R 27.10.2015
Panama R 17.11.2015
Guyana R 30.11.2015
Côte d’Ivoire R 08.12.2015
Grenada R 08.12.2015
Saint Lucia R 08.12.2015
Kenya R 10.12.2015
Brunei Darussalam R 15.12.2015
Viet Nam R 15.12.2015
Myanmar R 16.12.2015
Norway R 16.12.2015
Ukraine R 16.12.2015
Zambia R 16.12.2015
Georgia R 04.01.2016
Lesotho R 04.01.2016
Seychelles R 11.01.2016
Jamaica R 19.01.2016
Mali R 20.01.2016
Cambodia R 12.02.2016
Paraguay R 01.03.2016
Turkey R 16.03.2016
Brazil R 29.03.2016
Macao, China R 11.04.2016
United Arab Emirates R 18.04.2016
Samoa R 21.04.2016
India R 22.04.2016
Russian Federation R 22.04.2016
Albania R 10.05.2016
Montenegro R 10.05.2016
Kazakhstan R 26.05.2016
Sri Lanka R 31.05.2016
Saint Kitts and Nevis R 17.06.2016
Madagascar R 20.06.2016
Moldova, Republic of R 24.06.2016
El Salvador R 04.07.2016
Honduras R 14.07.2016
Mexico R 26.07.2016
Peru R 27.07.2016
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of R 28.07.2016
Afghanistan R 29.07.2016
Senegal R 24.08.2016
Uruguay R 30.08.2016
Bahrain, Kingdom of R 23.09.2016
Bangladesh R 27.09.2016
Philippines R 27.10.2016
Iceland R 31.10.2016
Chile R 21.11.2016
Swaziland R 21.11.2016
Dominica R 28.11.2016
Mongolia R 28.11.2016
Gabon R 05.12.2016
Kyrgyz Republic R 06.12.2016
Canada R 16.12.2016
Ghana R 04.01.2017
Mozambique R 06.01.2017
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines R 09.01.2017
Nigeria R 16.01.2017
Nepal R 24.01.2017
Chad R 22.02.2017
Jordan R 22.02.2017
Oman R 22.02.2017
Rwanda R 22.02.2017
Total: 112
Sorry Eideard, I had to list the fake countries who ratified.
The blog is full of angry old men, it’s like 1968 all over again, fake news and get off my lawn.
Yes,
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/de/6d/c6/de6dc6672a65effe21af009426c9c729.jpg
What about:
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.69068759.6788/raf,750×1000,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.u1.jpg
:-]
Attitude smatitude, get Real
https://goo.gl/images/lfmcK3
Gay sex pics? WTH fitz?
To all on DU, I’m really sorry about that pic. I didn’t notice the sexual content.
Wow! Someone saying they are (personally) sorry on this forum.
Accepted and very refreshing!
Anyone else?
I’m sorry too. 😲
Are you Sure that that (sorry) isn’t Alt-facts, in this wild and wacky world of information one keeps double guessing
Just kidding. I would never apologize and Not be sincere. These damn cell phones. I miss my desktop with a 32″ monitor.
Lastly, Phydeau what happened to bobbo, did Pedro finally send him over the edge?
I miss bobbo, I even miss Dallas.
Well thanks jp. I’m still “totally here”–commented too much on the KellyAnn OP 2 below this thread.
I just don’t care about rocket launches, once you see 200 of them, you’ve seen enough. ((Contra: I would like to watch the first space elevator take off……….)) And…not much interested in issues of MACRO economics as the relevant issues are never covered….and I don’t understand them when they are. THE RELEVANT ISSUES: who gets hurt vs who gets helped, by how much on both sides, what would have been a better approach and who stopped it–never covered.
The T.Rump fiasco…… lot’s to comment on but it surely will get too repetitive very soon. How often can anyone say: “What a loon?”
Time for a good in depth OP on Anthropomorphic Global Warming. Its only the most important issue facing us all…………. and there are still too many loons standing in the way of our salvation. Although….I’m somewhat sated in debating idiots on other forums. I’m sure they are idiots rather than shills……no one would pay for the silliness offered up as “alternate facts.”
…………….and life goes on…………………. for now.
Truth: It takes one to know one.
He doesn’t understand, so at some point he might show up and ask a question about this deal so you can give help out with his attempt to deliver a lefty talking point.
This is standardization of procedures and such.
I’m not saying it doesn’t matter — it clearly does — but isn’t really a “trade deal” any more than when all European countries switched to drive on the right side of the road or countries adopting the metric system.
HM==see my comment just above. Shirley–this is a trade deal in any fair regard? Cutting costs by 14%…. is a “deal.” But the relevant issues are never discussed, hence your lack of BEING INFORMED, and lack of interest in the subject.
Just as our international overlords want. 14% is “saved” but who gets it? Certainly not the consumer.
Just look.
“Who gets it?”
Higher trade activity? I bet the CO2 layer gets it.
Slightly along the same theme …
And to wrap up an argument last year or so about “self-driving” cars …
Looks like Google, Apple and Uber are basically done with the idea they will be making “self-driving” cars.
http://autoblog.com/2017/02/21/race-for-autonomous-cars-is-over-mcelroy-autoline-opinion/
I’m convinced all the smoke and mirrors about self-driving cars was to raise loads of cash.
Eventually it will happen, but not anytime soon.
More likely is semi-automated truck fleets so less experienced (low waged) drivers can reduce training costs (but more importantly, wages).
The article doesn’t address self driving cars other than “any” new car maker has a tough go of it.
From the Shark Tank: “Let me offer a licensing deal…………..”
Silicone valley making cars may be dead, but self driving cars has HUGE incentives for our Corporate Overlords.
Of note: Airplanes have been autonomous from point to point for over 20 years and many of the crashes caused by “over riding” pilot error. A fun counterfactual: what if pilots WERE taken off planes?…. all according to routes and terminals etc. Not the bush pilot routes.
Still, as an ex-pilot, it always amuses me how much more difficult CAR driving is from AIRPLANE flying. Cars: other people.
ain’t that always the thing?
This question’s for you bobbo. Please tell us, in as much detail you can (if you can), exactly where the 97% figure, touted by the Doom and Gloom Warmests, came from.
Because most people have no idea, and the answer just might surprise those who have no idea.
afaik/remember: some academic did a literature review on articles available in professional journals. (ie: NOT business magazines or Hollywood Today) that were on the subject of “climate.”
Most of the articles had no affirmative statement one way or the other regarding AGW, the article JUST ASSUMED IT and went on with what they were about.
Its just like articles regarding how Koala’s are being impacted by venereal disease don’t start out by discussing the pros and cons of evolution: its just assumed.
Even more relevant: some years ago the Science Professional Organizations…like GeoPhysics, or the Petroleum Institute (whatever) had a split with most issuing statement affirmatively supporting AGW as an issue….but some were expressly against it…while even more had no position.
Today…the last hold out…some big Oil concern…went from negative to making no statement.
Of note: the very exact same lying bastards that got sued and lost and prosecuted for lying about Tobacco and Cancer ((still no proof of any connection)) were hired for the same rape of Mother Earth.
Know what I mean?
I linked Bobbo an article from Scientific American discrediting the 97% number.
He wasn’t interested.
Despite the number being incorrect, Obama and other people were still saying it.
The problem I have with that is that is unscientific behavior.
Humans screw up the environment left and right and we need to be moving to all renewable energy because this isn’t 1950.
But fluffing up rhetoric is wrong.
For Bobbo: https://scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
Self driving cars (for now) is exactly as much bullshit as package delivery by drones was.
If you think traffic is bad now, wait for self driving cars!!!! All the folks too old or blind or otherwise disabled from driving will be on the road. And the damned things will be programmed to obey all traffic laws, meaning they will drive 10 mph slower than regular traffic, causing a backup behind them just like the current day idiots playing with their phones.
I wouldn’t want one anyway, but what I DO want is a George Jestson flying car that folds into an attache case!
Total and complete failure to tell me where the 97% figure is derived. And you want to discuss this?
Its really not that hard, so I will give you another shot. The problem is, the 97% figure is bogus, and you need to tell me why you think its not.
I’ll engage if you wish, if the eds allow, but not at your deplorable level. Its just not interesting.
If you have any “real” question….fire away.
Yes…. the study is based on the exercise of judgment. something
that can be subverted and always criticized as it was. But it was replicated and paralleled by other similar measures….like the formal statements from Science Societies.
The only ones speaking against it are idiots and shills.
Fraud, mistakes, bad ideas, bias, stumbles, pro-AGW shills and idiots===always present. Just a whole lot less than their opponents.
Deplorable = Trump supporter/Troglodyte. I get it.
Now, please tell me how the 97% figure was derived. At this point it seems that you really have no idea.
deplorable = can’t read. Or possibly just ignorant and too lazy to learn?
“Literature Review” is well understood.
Google the basics, and if you have further questions…go ahead.
As always, Bobbo, you’re entitled to your opinions. I’ve just never been able to buy into most of them. Good luck though. Maybe someday you can write a book.
Hopefully steering Bobbo to a productive conversation:
re: self-driving cars …
All the self-driving car efforts have had serious issues like running stoplights, traffic accidents, running over animals, etc.
My point is simply I knew the above wouldn’t tolerated in real traffic conditions in non-testing situations.
When Google was saying “self-driving” cars can’t identify a stoplight visually because the technology isn’t there yet, I knew it wasn’t going to happen “for real”.
Yes, they’ll use the technology that does help to semi-automate some things and do new safety features.
But a jury trial wouldn’t have put up with, say, Google or Uber putting autonomous vehicles known to have safety issues on the road.
The first time some people got killed by autonomous cars, Google would have been on the receiving end up of a huge judgment saying they favored saving a few dollars and it cost lives.
Anyway, just pointing out I won the argument 🙂
A year ago, you insisted I was wrong because you believed the propaganda articles Google and Uber pumped out in the press.
Also: VR may or may not end up doing ok. Sony is selling a decent number of units … https://nytimes.com/2017/02/26/business/sony-playstation-vr-sales.html
Occulous is likely to not be around too long … already owes $500 million in damages and an injunction would be a company killer.
https://cnet.com/news/zenimax-permanent-injunction-oculus-facebook-vr-virtual-reality/
Catching up on all your issues? Shirley, there must be more than 2?
I almost gave you a congrats on the Car thing. I think your low level tech point is good, as is the attack on one of the few laboring classes left.
VR//Morse so – AR (Augmented Reality)//==>is just “tech.” but as you noted, its tech that displaces people….so thats the direction. Path and scope to vary.
Ha, ha….putting my “what else did you think hat” on: someone could to a Literature Search, lets say some 3 years after Silicone pumps the literature with such “placed” items…and once its shown that “there is a consensus of experts” who agree that Self Driving Cars are safer than Humonoids on Legalized Drugs: I see no reason for fault free auto accident insurance designed after Workers Comp to go into affect.
Big Macro Point: Everyone wins except for the Lotto Winners of the past………and trial lawyers. Who would be against THAT?????
Think of #3—I just got a six pack of some new beer. Its taste time……………………………….. oh, what the hell …… Its Guinness Extra Stout to be cut with Heineken if my memory serves, its good but too “rich” for me. Damn==already told that joke too soon ago.
Shirley?
Did you mean Surely?
Makes a whole lot more sense with the latter.
Hmeyers says:
2/26/2017 at 6:30 pm
For Bobbo: https://scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
I would have dismissed it this time too but for your efforts and link. Am I that biased I see the article as CONFIRMING THE CONSENSUS in a triple down manner? ie: I agree “the number” isn’t important. The consensus is. Intelligent people don’t quibble. I do it all the time, but only with that caution. Ha, ha—yes, I crack myself up.
Leaving ripe: WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. the science, the tech, the tax policy, the social commitment, the alternatives to address it are all open.
Vice Essentials Ep 501 on point last night: Miami building high rise condo EVEN WHILE OCEAN WAVES MADE THE GROUND WET. Good old Federal Insurance.
why is a literature search an important approach?
Sh*t…I had two more…….but the Guinness is good.
……………. all comes down to priorities….. that, and building an infrastructure “for” smart cars. With enough beer, everything flows.
Is it my memory, or the quality of imported beer, that this Guinness Extra Stout is not as “syrupy” or stout or caramelly as regular Guinness from the tap?
Well………. at least I didn’t have to cross the channel on the Ferry.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157694622351/the-climate-science-debate-illusion
https://forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#4781a39d3414
Like “What about bobbo?” said…the 97% number is bullshit. Which makes you wonder if the believers are stupid or just lazy.
Neither. They love the argument so they believe it. The authors of the study were set on 97% result before they started. The forum leaked, and we saw how they changed the definitions when the results didn’t come out right.