Comments on: UPDATED: SCORECARD! GET YOUR FTA SCORECARD! http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/ Korea... in Blog Format Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:14:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: OneFreeKorea » FTA Annex Could Allow Kaesong Imports http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-85809 OneFreeKorea » FTA Annex Could Allow Kaesong Imports Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:27:29 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-85809 [...] understood the importance of being more accomodating on beef and autos (Dram man has done the best issue-by-issue analysis in that regard; Andy Jackson also links to this excellent [...] [...] understood the importance of being more accomodating on beef and autos (Dram man has done the best issue-by-issue analysis in that regard; Andy Jackson also links to this excellent [...]

]]> By: Linkd http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-57723 Linkd Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:08:08 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-57723 To Sweet Lou, this one for US/Korea FTA: http://www.consejomexicano.org/download.php?id=655374,841,7 This one for gov't support for agricuture, by country: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/54/32034202.pdf Also, just Google "jeffrey schott" + korea Happy reading! To Sweet Lou,

this one for US/Korea FTA:

http://www.consejomexicano.org.....5374,841,7

This one for gov’t support for agricuture, by country:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/54/32034202.pdf

Also, just Google “jeffrey schott” + korea

Happy reading!

]]> By: skindleshanks http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53509 skindleshanks Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:50:36 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53509 Is there any good commentary available on the Canada-Korea FTA talks? Seems like a great deal for everyone - Canadians get cheap tangerines and cars, and Korea gets oatmeal and maple syrup! What's keeping them from fast-tracking that? Is there any good commentary available on the Canada-Korea FTA talks? Seems like a great deal for everyone - Canadians get cheap tangerines and cars, and Korea gets oatmeal and maple syrup! What’s keeping them from fast-tracking that?

]]> By: Hugh http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53488 Hugh Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:05:11 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53488 Repeat after me: There will not be a Korea/US FTA from these negotiations, and the Noh admin never intended for there to be one? Ask yourself, why would they, America-suspicious to the core of the party, ever propose this in the first place? Why has Noh, and GeunTae, and Finance Minister Han, and Foreign Minister Ban all said nothing or next-to-nothing in support of or public selling of this? This FTA is meant, pre-election, to infuriate the Uri base of farmers, students, trade unionists and also win sympathy with the general population long propagandized to conviction that America is a bully and any dealings with America must surely be humiliating victimization. This seems preposterously illogical, that by commencing free trade talks a party can ride a wave of anti-FTA sentiment. Then, you remember you are in Korea. Notice the silence of the Uri leadership on this issue? America should give some polite reason to back out, NOW. This is a colossal waste of the entire trade team's time, and if played out to the end along Uri party calculations may actually contribute to these fools being re-elected. Repeat after me: There will not be a Korea/US FTA from these negotiations, and the Noh admin never intended for there to be one? Ask yourself, why would they, America-suspicious to the core of the party, ever propose this in the first place? Why has Noh, and GeunTae, and Finance Minister Han, and Foreign Minister Ban all said nothing or next-to-nothing in support of or public selling of this?

This FTA is meant, pre-election, to infuriate the Uri base of farmers, students, trade unionists and also win sympathy with the general population long propagandized to conviction that America is a bully and any dealings with America must surely be humiliating victimization.

This seems preposterously illogical, that by commencing free trade talks a party can ride a wave of anti-FTA sentiment. Then, you remember you are in Korea.

Notice the silence of the Uri leadership on this issue?

America should give some polite reason to back out, NOW. This is a colossal waste of the entire trade team’s time, and if played out to the end along Uri party calculations may actually contribute to these fools being re-elected.

]]> By: SweetLou http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53477 SweetLou Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:05:12 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53477 Does anyone have any decent English-language resources that give a (somewhat) balanced view of the FTA? I work with Koreans in China and enjoy "discussing" these kind of topics with them, but wouldn't mind educating myself a bit more... Does anyone have any decent English-language resources that give a (somewhat) balanced view of the FTA?

I work with Koreans in China and enjoy “discussing” these kind of topics with them, but wouldn’t mind educating myself a bit more…

]]> By: Left Flank http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53471 Left Flank Tue, 24 Oct 2006 03:27:09 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53471 <strong>Give Me Prosperity, Or Give Me Death!...</strong> No! No! No! A ROK-US Free-Trade Agreement is not for the Bush administration, the Roh administration, or even for ROK or US, and definitely not the two countries' militaries; it's for South Korean and American consumers and businesses. As negot... Give Me Prosperity, Or Give Me Death!…

No! No! No!

A ROK-US Free-Trade Agreement is not for the Bush administration, the Roh administration, or even for ROK or US, and definitely not the two countries’ militaries; it’s for South Korean and American consumers and businesses.

As negot…

]]> By: mins0306 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53460 mins0306 Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:53:00 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53460 I believe all those civil servants in the ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade(MOFAT) has missed the meaning of the word Free Trade Agreement. A FTA means that ALL goods and services should flow from one country to another without tariffs and hindrance. But to the ROK MOFAT, I think they translated it as goods and services should flow from one country to another without tariffs and hindrance, BUT some goods should be protected for the sake of national interests. To the guys in the Blue House and the MOFAT building at Sejong-ro, you asked for this FTA. My suggestion is that you work with the USTR and negotiate a TRUE FTA. If not, drop it, apologize to the US side and the Korean people for wasting eveyone's time and taxpayer's money and go back to being the pathetical little people you are. I believe all those civil servants in the ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade(MOFAT) has missed the meaning of the word Free Trade Agreement.

A FTA means that ALL goods and services should flow from one country to another without tariffs and hindrance. But to the ROK MOFAT, I think they translated it as goods and services should flow from one country to another without tariffs and hindrance, BUT some goods should be protected for the sake of national interests.

To the guys in the Blue House and the MOFAT building at Sejong-ro, you asked for this FTA. My suggestion is that you work with the USTR and negotiate a TRUE FTA. If not, drop it, apologize to the US side and the Korean people for wasting eveyone’s time and taxpayer’s money and go back to being the pathetical little people you are.

]]> By: Dram_man http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53444 Dram_man Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:24:38 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53444 Slim> As I understand it the USTR is under the Dept. of State with other departments consulting. Slim> As I understand it the USTR is under the Dept. of State with other departments consulting.

]]> By: slim http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53443 slim Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:18:34 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-53443 "US State Department (which runs the talks for the US side)" It's the USTR who runs that show. “US State Department (which runs the talks for the US side)”

It’s the USTR who runs that show.

]]> By: Dram_man http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/24/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-50467 Dram_man Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:51:18 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/13/scorecard-get-your-fta-scorecard/#comment-50467 Corpy> While I can agree with a majority of the article (however part of me wonders if was written tongue in cheek), what I find is that it takes somewhat a simplistic view of trade policy. The lack of consideration of non-tariff barriers somewhat a flaw in the argument. For example, lets consider the engine displacement tax under review as part of the USROK FTA. All rhetoric and history aside it is easy to argue that the tax is a non tariff barrier since it increases costs to consumers and their consumption patterns. On the other hand, all rhetoric aside, you can make a good case that the engine displacement tax encourages fuel efficiency and is better for the environment. A similar argument goes around the adoption of a "positive list" system for pharmaceuticals (barrier or healthcare cost containment). Going back to the article, it would still be a long political debate whether or not to get rid of these issues (or for the US side things anti-dumping laws) due to the benefits not tied to protectionism. Er go, I think a trade agreement (no matter how many parties) is needed to provide the stimulus to discuss these types of changes because no politician wants to take up a problematic issue with out benefits accrued by such an agreement. Last thought, I think one could make the case the US has pursued a very similar policy as outlined in the article since the repeal of the Smoot-Harley tariffs in the 30's. Or even possibly since its beginnings as a country (the Revolutionary War was sparked in part by English Mercantilism). So if to act as outlined in the article, I think it would be more a redoubling of efforts than a new innovative policy line. Corpy> While I can agree with a majority of the article (however part of me wonders if was written tongue in cheek), what I find is that it takes somewhat a simplistic view of trade policy. The lack of consideration of non-tariff barriers somewhat a flaw in the argument.

For example, lets consider the engine displacement tax under review as part of the USROK FTA. All rhetoric and history aside it is easy to argue that the tax is a non tariff barrier since it increases costs to consumers and their consumption patterns. On the other hand, all rhetoric aside, you can make a good case that the engine displacement tax encourages fuel efficiency and is better for the environment. A similar argument goes around the adoption of a “positive list” system for pharmaceuticals (barrier or healthcare cost containment).

Going back to the article, it would still be a long political debate whether or not to get rid of these issues (or for the US side things anti-dumping laws) due to the benefits not tied to protectionism. Er go, I think a trade agreement (no matter how many parties) is needed to provide the stimulus to discuss these types of changes because no politician wants to take up a problematic issue with out benefits accrued by such an agreement.

Last thought, I think one could make the case the US has pursued a very similar policy as outlined in the article since the repeal of the Smoot-Harley tariffs in the 30’s. Or even possibly since its beginnings as a country (the Revolutionary War was sparked in part by English Mercantilism). So if to act as outlined in the article, I think it would be more a redoubling of efforts than a new innovative policy line.

]]>