Trade Enforcement Act of 2007
Senate Committee on Finance – Hearing – May 22, 2008
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing052208.htm
“The administration has many tools to enforce trade agreements and trade remedy laws… But having these rules on the books is not enough. The Government needs to enforce them… USTR can and should do more. And Congress can help USTR to do more by updating its trade enforcement tools. Many of the trade enforcement tools that USTR uses today were created decades ago. Congress created them to address different problems, in a very different world.”
Free Trade Agreements: Promoting Prosperity in 2008
The Heritage Foundation – Paper - May 2, 2008 – 7 pages
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/upload/bg_2132.pdf
“Freer trade allows more goods and services to reach American consumers at lower prices, giving families more income to save or to spend on other goods and services.[…] This year, Congress has a real opportunity to resist partisanship and help America and the world reap the rewards of free trade policies. It is essential that lawmakers separate myth from fact and assess upcoming trade initiatives objectively—not through the lens of campaign rhetoric. Armed with the facts, they can then help to ensure that prosperity in the U.S. and around the world has a real chance to grow and thrive, both this year and in the years to come.”
Raymond J. Ahearn
U.S.-French Commercial Ties
Congressional Research Service - Library of Congress – Report - Web posted May 14, 2008 – 16 pages
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32459.pdf
“U.S. commercial ties with France are extensive, mutually profitable, and growing. With over $1.2 billion in commercial transactions taking place between the two countries every day of the year, each country has an increasingly large stake in the health and openness of the other’s economy. France is the 9th largest merchandise trading partner for the United States and the United States is France’s largest trading partner outside the European Union. […] While some public opinion polls at the time suggested support for economic boycotts as a way of expressing opposition to France’s position on Iraq, an economic backlash appears not to have materialized. Effective boycotts would jeopardize thousands of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.”
The Economic and National Security Implications of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
The Brookings Institution – Event Transcript - May 12, 2008 – 38 pages
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2008/0512_columbiafta/20080512_colombia.pdf
“International trade has grown rapidly in recent decades. Most countries impose tariffs on imports, which protect domestic industries from overseas competition but distort world markets. With jobs and wages under pressure, both global trade talks and bilateral trade agreements have become harder and harder to negotiate. Although a free-trade deal has been negotiated by the United States and Colombia, it still awaits congressional approval. […] On May 12, the Brookings Institution hosted Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) for a discussion of the economic and national security implications of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. ”
U.S.-China Trade: USTR's China Compliance Reports and Plans Could Be Improved
GAO – Report - April 14, 2008 – 64 pages
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-405
“GAO was asked to (1) evaluate USTR’s annual China trade compliance reports to Congress and the degree to which they present information necessary to fully understand China’s compliance situation and (2) examine the status of the plans presented in USTR’s February 2006 top-to-bottom report. GAO systematically analyzed the contents of USTR’s compliance reports from 2002 to 2007 and reviewed information on the status of agencies’ monitoring and enforcement activities.”
Gary Clyde Hufbauer
Answering the Critics: Why Large American Gains from Globalization Are Plausible Peterson Institute – Paper – May 2008
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/papers/print.cfm?doc=pub&ResearchID=929
“Hufbauer responds to criticisms of Dani Rodrik and L. Josh Bivens that the Peterson Institute has exaggerated the benefits of globalization in raising US household income and GDP. The estimate published by Hufbauer and his Peterson Institute colleagues suggests that full global liberalization would ultimately increase US GDP by about 4.1 percent, about $570 billion based on US national income in 2007.”
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jisun Kim
International Competition Policy and the WTO
Peterson Institute – Paper – May 2008
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=930
“A multilateral agreement on competition policy is highly desirable given the covert growth of murky cartels and the boom (until the recent financial crisis) in cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As). However, the prospect for a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement covering all WTO members is remote. The best prospect over the next decade (after the Doha Round is concluded or abandoned) is for a constructive agreement among a subset of WTO members that covers the interests of both developed and developing countries. Such an agreement should address issues of interest to developing countries, such as export cartels and the anticompetitive aspects of large M&A deals. It should also address issues that concern developed countries, such as concerted efforts by local producers to block the entry of new foreign firms.”
C. Fred Bergsten
World Trade at Risk
Peterson Institute for International Economics – Policy Brief - May 13, 2008 – 3 pages
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/pb/pb08-5.pdf
“The decision by the House of Representatives on April 10 to change the rules for Congressional action on trade agreements drives a gaping hole in US trade policy and poses the gravest threat to the global trading system in decades. By rejecting long-settled procedures that prevented Congressional sidetracking of trade deals agreed by fully authorized Presidents, it instantaneously destroyed the credibility of the United States as a negotiating partner in the eyes of the rest of the world. Unless reversed soon, the House action will severely damage both the US economy and US foreign policy. It will particularly undermine the presumed goal of any new Administration in 2009 to restore our country's standing as a reliable partner in a cooperative multilateral world.”
Voir TABLE DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire