UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - President Bush told a U.N. summit Wednesday that the United States was prepared to drop all trade tariffs, subsidies and other barriers if other nations did the same.

Eliminating trade barriers "could lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the next 15 years," Bush said, calling for a successful conclusion to World Trade Organization talks on trade and development, known as the Doha round of negotiations.

Bush told the gathering of some 150 world leaders at U.N. headquarters that the United States had previously signaled its willingness to eliminate agricultural subsidies and other barriers "to open markets for farmers around the world."

"Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to the free flow of goods and services if other nations do the same," he said.

"This is key to overcoming poverty in the world's poorest nations. It's essential we promote prosperity and opportunity for all nations."


http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/14/news/international/bush_trade.reut/index.htm

*********************************************

Yesterday, Bush takes responsibility for the Federal response to Katrina and today he wants to eliminate all tariffs. Has Bush been dipping into his speedball stash again?

Interesting idea.


Any economists that can give us the up and downsides of this?

Not an economist, but our farmers are heavily protected.... and so are our last few remaining manufacturing plants.

Sounds good to me, but I highly doubt this will come even close to fruition.

If people thought the family farm lifestyle was in danger now, this could pretty much end it.

This surprises me. Bush has always seemed like such a protectionist when it comes to trade.

Why? Wouldn't it open our farmers to more international sales?

I'm no economist, but the impression I get from international basic produce prices is that they're lower in the developing world. The US farms, especially the small scale ones not owned by the large farming corps, have mostly relied on government support. When the subsidies and tariffs go, the small farms will get swallowed up.

It depends on a lot of things. Particularly here in Africa. Such a thing would be a great thing for places like Africa, but as already said, it would most likely have a significant impact on American subsidized agriculture. The developing world, particularly Africa, has a lot of issues. Our free aid undercuts their prices. Then nations that have the ability to grow food put heavy tarrifs on imported goods. In other cases, it's more cost effective for some African nations to export their agricultural goods than it is to actually feed their own people. So governments impose taxes, and ban trade, which just wreck agriculture here in Africa. If this idea is ever going to work, then third world nations themselves will have to end tarriffs in any shape and form too. They need better cooperation amongst themselves, and better plans for aid, otherwise this plan won't help anything. It has the potential to do an enormous amount of good though.

I support it in theory.

I agree with LW.

There, I said it.

I wonder if this is a push to knock down the economic barriers in China and India where America has the most to gain economically.

I just love it when Bush actually tries to do something good in the eyes of the left wing, it still gets attacked by Red Mosquito. Eddie's political tactics must be working.

Bush doesn't even adhere to existing international trade agreements, such as NAFTA, so how can he be trusted to expand these types of deals across the globe? You can't preach something you don't practice.

So even when a captain tries to right a ship, you throw stones. You would rather sink than try to help bail water. Typical. Did you say you were voting for Hillary?

I didn't realize that free trade was a staple of the left wing.

I never said it was. Red Mosquito seems to like the idea, but not the man. Just very typical.

You have added much to the thread topic but if I may actually address the topic instead of boiling the waters, I'm interested to see how and when this idea on international trade is implemented, it is a very interesting development.

So if you like one idea a person has that means you should support all of his other principles? That's rather asinine.