PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Pat Buchanan Free Trade Destorys America


Chocolate Hog
03-13-2010, 03:34 PM
http://buchanan.org/blog/dismantling-america-3714


Though Bush 41 and Bush 43 often disagreed, one issue did unite them both with Bill Clinton: protectionism.

Globalists all, they rejected any federal measure to protect America’s industrial base, economic independence or the wages of U.S. workers.

Together they rammed through NAFTA, brought America under the World Trade Organization, abolished tariffs and granted Chinese-made goods unrestricted access to the immense U.S. market.

Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled, in 44 pages of charts and graphs, the results of two decades of this Bush-Clinton experiment in globalization. His compilation might be titled, “Indices of the Industrial Decline and Fall of the United States.”

From 2000 to 2009, industrial production declined here for the first time since the 1930s. Gross domestic product also fell, and we actually lost jobs.

In traded goods alone, we ran up $6.2 trillion in deficits — $3.8 trillion of that in manufactured goods.

Things that we once made in America—indeed, we made everything—we now buy from abroad with money that we borrow from abroad.

Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.

The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world’s, as well.

Not to worry, we hear, the foreign products we buy are toys and low-tech goods. We keep the high-tech jobs here in the U.S.A.

Sorry. U.S. trade surpluses in advanced technology products ended in Bush’s first term. The last three years we have run annual trade deficits in ATP of nearly $70 billion with China alone.

About our dependency on Mideast oil we hear endless wailing.

Yet most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. And for every dollar we send abroad for oil or gas, we send $4.20 abroad for manufactured goods. Why is a dependency on the Persian Gulf for a fraction of the oil we consume more of a danger than a huge growing dependency on China for the necessities of our national life?

How great is that dependency?

China accounts for 83 percent of the U.S. global trade deficit in manufactures and 84 percent of our global trade deficit in electronics and machinery.

Over the last decade, our total trade deficit with China in manufactured goods was $1.75 trillion, which explains why China, its cash reserves approaching $3 trillion, holds the mortgage on America.

This week came a report that Detroit, forge and furnace of the Arsenal of Democracy in World War II, is considering razing a fourth of the city and turning it into farm and pastureland. Did the $1.2 trillion trade deficit we ran in autos and parts last decade help kill Detroit?

And if our purpose with NAFTA was to assist our neighbor Mexico, consider. Textile and apparel imports from China are now five times the dollar value of those imports from Mexico and Canada combined.

As exports are added to a nation’s GDP, and a trade deficit subtracted, the U.S. trade deficits that have averaged $500 billion to $600 billion a year for 10 years represent the single greatest factor pulling the United States down and raising China up into a rival for world power.

Yet, what is as astonishing as these indices of American decline is the indifference, the insouciance of our political class. Do they care?

How can one explain it?

Ignorance of history is surely one explanation. How many know that every modern nation that rose to world power did so by sheltering and nurturing its manufacturing and industrial base — from Britain under the Acts of Navigation to 1850, to protectionist America from the Civil War to the Roaring Twenties, to Bismarck’s Germany before World War I, to Stalin’s Russia, to postwar Japan, to China today?

No nation rose to world power on free trade. From Britain after 1860 to America after 1960, free trade has been the policy of powers that put consumption before production and today before tomorrow.

Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade.

Ideology is another explanation. Even a (Milton) Friedmanite free-trader should be able to see the disaster all around us and ask: What benefit does America receive from these mountains of imported goods to justify the terrible damage done to our country and countrymen?

Can they not see the correlation between the trade deficits and relative decline?

Republicans seem certain to benefit from the nation’s economic crisis this November. But is there any evidence they have learned anything about economics from the disastrous Bush decade?

Do they have any ideas for a wholesale restructuring of U.S. trade and tax policy, for a course correction to prevent America’s continuing decline?

Has anyone seen any evidence of it?

Chocolate Hog
03-13-2010, 03:35 PM
Great article. Buchanan should have been president in the 90's.

googlegoogle
03-13-2010, 05:35 PM
What would the world trading system be like if there had to be completely even trade?

Japan will never buy as much as us.

googlegoogle
03-13-2010, 05:41 PM
Heritage foundation rebuttal.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:uzVqYANFZ50J:www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1391.cfm+how+free+trade+benefits+us&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2010, 05:53 PM
Ideology is another explanation. Even a (Milton) Friedmanite free-trader should be able to see the disaster all around us and ask: What benefit does America receive from these mountains of imported goods to justify the terrible damage done to our country and countrymen?

And then we might further ask why Mr. Buchanan thinks this has anything to do with benefiting "America?" "America" doesn't own the jobs that have gone elsewhere. "America" never produced a goddamn thing except laws and regulations that helped to price our workforce into unemployment.

The jobs are gone in part because there's a realistic and more economically viable pool of labor elsewhere. If he wants the corporations that own the jobs gone as well he can help make it even more difficult for them to do any business at all in the U.S.

The "America" you're talking about is gone, Pat, if it ever really existed at all. Better tell people to get used to it.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2010, 05:57 PM
Heritage foundation rebuttal.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:uzVqYANFZ50J:www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1391.cfm+how+free+trade+benefits+us&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

That rebuttal is dated August 25, 2000.

HonestChieffan
03-13-2010, 06:02 PM
Pat is a kook

BucEyedPea
03-13-2010, 06:04 PM
Heritage is NeoConservative. I remember reading something they published from 1988 and they were for some sort of govt healthcare even.

It's not free trade that's been going on. It's managed, centrally planned trade aka mercantilism to benefit certain corporations since they get socialism for their losses and protectionism in the trade agreements. The American right, once again, is being snookered by the lies Neo Conservatives.

While it is true jobs were leaving the country before the so called "free-trade" era, they left more slowly due to market conditions and market conditions caused by bad govt policy. I am fine on that ( except when our bad govt policy is at fault) because labor is changing from the grass roots as workers become better off each generation. That's the way free trade should happen. When it's done they way it's being done it's destructive.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2010, 06:06 PM
Pat is a kook
You sound like Kotter, now.

So Ronald Reagan actually hired a kook for his Communications Director?
I don't think so. Where I disagree with Pat is that he thinks what we're getting is free-trade.

What is it with some of you righties resorting to such just because someone disagrees?

HonestChieffan
03-13-2010, 06:30 PM
Everybody is neo something. I'm neo turkey season a month from now.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2010, 07:04 PM
Everybody is neo something. I'm neo turkey season a month from now.

No they're not. "Neo" is just a new or modern version of something to set it off as not being the same as the original.

Chocolate Hog
03-13-2010, 07:54 PM
And then we might further ask why Mr. Buchanan thinks this has anything to do with benefiting "America?" "America" doesn't own the jobs that have gone elsewhere. "America" never produced a goddamn thing except laws and regulations that helped to price our workforce into unemployment.

The jobs are gone in part because there's a realistic and more economically viable pool of labor elsewhere. If he wants the corporations that own the jobs gone as well he can help make it even more difficult for them to do any business at all in the U.S.

The "America" you're talking about is gone, Pat, if it ever really existed at all. Better tell people to get used to it.

You don't think NAFTA played a part in sending away jobs? Sorry that's just not true.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2010, 07:56 PM
You don't think NAFTA played a part in sending away jobs? Sorry that's just not true.

Profits.

Chocolate Hog
03-13-2010, 07:58 PM
Pat is a kook

Pat is a Kook

Ron Paul is an isolationist

John McCain is a hero.

Obama is great speaker.

Sarah Palin is anti-establishment.


This is the type of idiocy that has sunk the nation.

Chocolate Hog
03-13-2010, 08:19 PM
Profits.

Profits for private entities that work close with the government and help create systematic theft? I agree and NAFTA is part of the equation.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2010, 08:38 PM
Profits for private entities that work close with the government and help create systematic theft? I agree and NAFTA is part of the equation.

Systematic theft, huh? I'm sorry. I'm impatient.

Chocolate Hog
03-13-2010, 08:59 PM
Systematic theft, huh? I'm sorry. I'm impatient.

Yes big business and government work together to create it.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2010, 09:12 PM
You don't think NAFTA played a part in sending away jobs? Sorry that's just not true.

Like that big giant sucking sound Perot prophesied would happen.
Like being told service and professional jobs would remain....ah yeah....to see one's tax returns being done in Bombay. Pro jobs like accounting, graphic design etc have gone overseas too. It's international Third Way socialism with American wealth and jobs being redistributed around the world by govt policy.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2010, 09:13 PM
Pat is a Kook

Ron Paul is an isolationist

John McCain is a hero.

Obama is great speaker.

Sarah Palin is anti-establishment.


This is the type of idiocy that has sunk the nation.

Keen observation.
And bombing Iran will handle Al Qaeda.:p

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2010, 09:47 PM
Yes big business and government work together to create it.

Uh huh. Well, I'll be watching out for that.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Chocolate Hog
03-13-2010, 10:32 PM
Uh huh. Well, I'll be watching out for that.

Keep fighting the good fight.

The bailout? Healthcare "reform". It's all corporatism.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2010, 11:15 PM
The bailout? Healthcare "reform". It's all corporatism.

I agree with that. It's just that when someone uses a word such as theft, I tend to walk away from the discussion. Words such as that sometimes indicate a level of emotionalism that I usually can't muster when it comes to the subject at hand.

petegz28
03-14-2010, 01:08 AM
The fact is that the chase for ever greater, and more importantly ever faster profits has finally caught up to this country and is taking a huge bite out of our ass right now. The drive for quicker and ever-increasing profits has corporations and Wall St. living on a 3 month cycle. Quarterly Profits. That is what it has come down too. It is an unreal concept that is breaking the back of this country. We lack the will for long term investment in this country anymore because the boards of companies are more worried about the 3 month outlook on Wall St. than they are about running a successful company. The process of importing more and more good and seeking out cheaper and cheaper labor reached the "greed" level several years ago and now has entered the self-destruction level. Large companies continue to eliminate jobs in this country to replace them with cheaper labor so a few at the top can enrich themselves. This will be a short-lived reality as we see on a daily basis anymore that our economy is crumbling all around us. There is plenty of blame to go around both in the public and private sectors for this. But the bottom line is that the question of "when is enough enough?" has to be looked at seriously in these times or greed and quest for quick profits will bring this country to it's knees.

Reaper16
03-14-2010, 07:20 AM
The fact is that the chase for ever greater, and more importantly ever faster profits has finally caught up to this country and is taking a huge bite out of our ass right now. The drive for quicker and ever-increasing profits has corporations and Wall St. living on a 3 month cycle. Quarterly Profits. That is what it has come down too. It is an unreal concept that is breaking the back of this country. We lack the will for long term investment in this country anymore because the boards of companies are more worried about the 3 month outlook on Wall St. than they are about running a successful company. The process of importing more and more good and seeking out cheaper and cheaper labor reached the "greed" level several years ago and now has entered the self-destruction level. Large companies continue to eliminate jobs in this country to replace them with cheaper labor so a few at the top can enrich themselves. This will be a short-lived reality as we see on a daily basis anymore that our economy is crumbling all around us. There is plenty of blame to go around both in the public and private sectors for this. But the bottom line is that the question of "when is enough enough?" has to be looked at seriously in these times or greed and quest for quick profits will bring this country to it's knees.
I feel that way too.

patteeu
03-14-2010, 04:30 PM
You sound like Kotter, now.

So Ronald Reagan actually hired a kook for his Communications Director?
I don't think so. Where I disagree with Pat is that he thinks what we're getting is free-trade.

What is it with some of you righties resorting to such just because someone disagrees?

FTR, Reagan also hired a lot of neocons and a lot of people who later went to work for The Heritage Foundation.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2010, 04:43 PM
Did you say something?

banyon
03-14-2010, 04:54 PM
OH SNAP IT'S FAKE IGNORE, EVERYONE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!! [/UP]

patteeu
03-14-2010, 05:05 PM
Did you say something?

Yes. Was it something you didn't want to hear?

BucEyedPea
03-14-2010, 06:19 PM
eh?

Saul Good
03-14-2010, 06:22 PM
What is a bigger joke?

1. BEP ignoring the Ron Paul/Ronald Reagan thread
2. BEP's responding to every one of patteeu's posts with a reminder that he's on ignore

BucEyedPea
03-14-2010, 06:35 PM
huh?

Baby Lee
03-14-2010, 06:49 PM
What is a bigger joke?

1. BEP ignoring the Ron Paul/Ronald Reagan thread
2. BEP's responding to every one of patteeu's posts with a reminder that he's on ignore

Meh, it's the natural sequelae of the mixing of political rhetoric and lady parts.

BigRedChief
03-14-2010, 07:58 PM
What a load of crap. Protect our borders? protect our industry? And then other countries won't retilate?

BucEyedPea
03-14-2010, 08:21 PM
To post #32. Baby Lee, I can't hear you. Please speak louder.

Saul Good
03-14-2010, 08:31 PM
What a load of crap. Protect our borders? protect our industry? And then other countries won't retilate?

There's nothing to retaliate against. What could China do that they haven't done already?

mlyonsd
03-15-2010, 02:45 PM
Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.

The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world’s, as well.



Wow. Just F'ing wow.

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:15 PM
What a load of crap. Protect our borders? protect our industry? And then other countries won't retilate?

This to an extent. Like it or not, globalization is going to happen. The problem is, banyon nailed it on a post awhile ago but I'm not searching for it, that when the US negotiates these free trade agreements, we actually abide by them and don't aggressively go after countries that don't. IMO we should stop making these agreements until there is a sufficient body to enact penalties against countries who don't hold to real free trade (see china as an example of a nation that needs to be severely penalized).

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 03:17 PM
This to an extent. Like it or not, globalization is going to happen. The problem is, banyon nailed it on a post awhile ago but I'm not searching for it, that when the US negotiates these free trade agreements, we actually abide by them and don't aggressively go after countries that don't. IMO we should stop making these agreements until there is a sufficient body to enact penalties against countries who don't hold to real free trade (see china as an example of a nation that needs to be severely penalized).

Yeah, we need MORE GOVERNMENT TO FIX THE PROBLEM!!!!!! :rolleyes:

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:19 PM
Yeah, we need MORE GOVERNMENT TO FIX THE PROBLEM!!!!!! :rolleyes:

brilliant reply. facking moran.

ClevelandBronco
03-15-2010, 03:20 PM
This to an extent. Like it or not, globalization is going to happen. The problem is, banyon nailed it on a post awhile ago but I'm not searching for it, that when the US negotiates these free trade agreements, we actually abide by them and don't aggressively go after countries that don't. IMO we should stop making these agreements until there is a sufficient body to enact penalties against countries who don't hold to real free trade (see china as an example of a nation that needs to be severely penalized).

China penalized by the U.S? Not in this century.

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:32 PM
China penalized by the U.S? Not in this century.

Fortunately for us, China is driving themselves off of a cliff.

mlyonsd
03-15-2010, 03:37 PM
Fortunately for us, China is driving themselves off of a cliff.

Maybe if they keep lending money to the Obama administration.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 03:39 PM
brilliant reply. facking moran.

It's preceisely what banyon called for.... and you mindlessly parroted via paraphrase.

Stoopid libbie douche (redundant, I know)

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:44 PM
Maybe if they keep lending money to the Obama administration.

China has painted themselves into a corner by maintaining their dollar peg. At this point their reserves are so massive that they will be screwed by a couple of things. Right now they've had to defend the RMB from appreciating too much. Well, once some of their more disastrous excesses hit the fan they will be forced to defend the RMB from falling. Well, when they do that they are going to have to sell dollars. As they sell those dollars they are going to push the dollar down (which by some estimates will eliminate a 1/3 of their reserves value due to the loss on the dollar). Once that happens their products will no longer be the "cheapest" so they will also have to fight with recessionary pressures as well. China is a paper tiger. If you want to invest in that portion of the world to capitalize on the growth then India is your best bet.

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:46 PM
It's preceisely what banyon called for.... and you mindlessly parroted via paraphrase.

Stoopid libbie douche (redundant, I know)

I parroted nothing. You are talking out of your ass. I've been very critical of US trade policy since I've been posting here. So you can fuck off now.

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:49 PM
I parroted nothing. You are talking out of your ass. I've been very critical of US trade policy since I've been posting here. So you can **** off now.

awwwwwwwwww, is someone getting butthurt?

Pat Buchanan Free Trade... 03-15-2010 03:37 PM HC_Chief f*ck you too, brainless libbie douchenozzle.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 03:52 PM
I parroted nothing. You are talking out of your ass. I've been very critical of US trade policy since I've been posting here. So you can **** off now.

You know what, you're right.... increasing government "sufficient body to enact penalties against countries who don't hold to real free trade" was totally your braindead idea.

Apologies to banyon.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 03:53 PM
awwwwwwwwww, is someone getting butthurt?

Pat Buchanan Free Trade... 03-15-2010 03:37 PM HC_Chief f*ck you too, brainless libbie douchenozzle.

You asked for it with your jaggoff response. I feel no shame whatsoever in neg-repping your dumb ass :D

donkhater
03-15-2010, 03:56 PM
Yeah, we need MORE GOVERNMENT TO FIX THE PROBLEM!!!!!! :rolleyes:

When you can't convince them through the power of persuasion, you use the persuasion of power.

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:58 PM
You know what, you're right.... increasing government "sufficient body to enact penalties against countries who don't hold to real free trade" was totally your braindead idea.

Apologies to banyon.

have you ever heard of the WTO?

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 04:02 PM
have you ever heard of the WTO?

Indeed I have. Perhaps it was you who forgot?

So you were suggesting rather than additional redundant corrupt government, you would like to see greater sweeping powers granted to an already redundant corrupt body? :hmmm:

KC native
03-15-2010, 04:05 PM
Indeed I have. Perhaps it was you who forgot?

So you were suggesting rather than additional redundant corrupt government, you would like to see greater sweeping powers granted to an already redundant corrupt body? :hmmm:

So, obviously, other people have had the same idea. Color me not surprised that you don't know dick about international trade.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 04:10 PM
So, obviously, other people have had the same idea. Color me not surprised that you don't know dick about international trade.

No, actually I'm an expert. that's why I debate the pros/cons of free trade and its impact on American economics with dickbreaths here, a KC Chiefs bulletin board.

Are you suggesting you are not also an expert? I see. Well then, you may, good sir, go f*ck yourself. :D

KC native
03-15-2010, 04:11 PM
No, actually I'm an expert. that's why I debate the pros/cons of free trade and its impact on American economics with dickbreaths here, a KC Chiefs bulletin board.

Are you suggesting you are not also an expert? I see. Well then, you may, good sir, go f*ck yourself. :D

:facepalm:

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 04:12 PM
:grr:STFU:eek::shake:ROFL:spock::doh!::evil::mad::clap::):D:(

KC native
03-15-2010, 04:14 PM
:grr:STFU:eek::shake:ROFL:spock::doh!::evil::mad::clap::):D:(

So, mr expert, are you going to actually discuss what I wrote or just keep trying to insult me (which you are doing quite poorly at)?

Calcountry
03-15-2010, 04:15 PM
Good, the economist is here. Tell me, KC, what would happen if the US loses its AAA rating?

KC native
03-15-2010, 04:17 PM
Good, the economist is here. Tell me, KC, what would happen if the US loses its AAA rating?

Much higher interest rates and growth would be choked off due to those higher rates. Considering the rest of the world is facing similar and in many instances worse circumstances the possibility of the US losing that AAA rating is very remote right now.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 04:27 PM
So, mr expert, are you going to actually discuss what I wrote or just keep trying to insult me (which you are doing quite poorly at)?

I did, and was called a "facking moran" for pointing out the obvious: you're a textbook liberal who believes government can solve any problem.

If it is an especially tricky, difficult issue, <i>more</i> government (in terms of additional committees, bodies, or powers) is the obvious solution.

No one should have to diagram the fallacy of such logic. If you have not learned it by now, you probably never will.

KC native
03-15-2010, 04:54 PM
I did, and was called a "facking moran" for pointing out the obvious: you're a textbook liberal who believes government can solve any problem.

If it is an especially tricky, difficult issue, <i>more</i> government (in terms of additional committees, bodies, or powers) is the obvious solution.

No one should have to diagram the fallacy of such logic. If you have not learned it by now, you probably never will.

You're a text book idiot conservative. Instead of offering solutions, you favor the status quo which fucks over a good portion of our country. You would rather that corporations and other nations exploit free trade agreements than having a body that has teeth that could do something about the issue. You didn't offer any ideas. You just wanted to spout of with the tried and true RWNJ line, "GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM." without having any idea of what is going on.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 05:01 PM
You're a text book idiot conservative. Instead of offering solutions, you favor the status quo which ****s over a good portion of our country. You would rather that corporations and other nations exploit free trade agreements than having a body that has teeth that could do something about the issue. You didn't offer any ideas. You just wanted to spout of with the tried and true RWNJ line, "GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM." without having any idea of what is going on.

lol
Thanks for proving my point(s).

1. I'm not a conservative, I am a pragmatic constitutionalist with a mile-wide streak of realism

2. Status quo != favored by any means as status quo = obscene amounts of ever-increasing government intervention

3. Government <i>is</i> the problem. The reason we clash is you hold the polar opposite to be true: "Government is the solution".

patteeu
03-15-2010, 05:07 PM
Unilateral libertarianism doesn't work very well in international relations. There is no global authority to enforce contracts between individuals or to prevent one entity from infringing on the rights of (or taking whatever it wants by force from) a relatively powerless individual.

The idea that as long as we play nice and respect everyone else's rights, they'll reciprocate is cute but unrealistic.

This is not a call for protectionism though. It's a defense of the development of free trade agreements. Instead of trying to go it alone, we should be finding like minded trading partners and finding the most mutually advantageous terms for trade between and among the partners. Ad hoc protectionist measures should be defensive and should take place outside of these agreements as much as possible. The agreements should make them unnecessary.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 05:11 PM
Actually, you can just lower tariffs unilaterally and have free trade. If other countries do business here with us, then they'll just have to use our courts to enforce things. That's how I see it should be done. If they don't like it they don't have to play. But they will, since we're a viable market for them.


Otherwise we just have the major mercantilists of the world controlling all these international bodies, whose real threat is that they bypass our laws and sovereignty.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 05:21 PM
Unilateral libertarianism doesn't work very well in international relations. There is no global authority to enforce contracts between individuals or to prevent one entity from infringing on the rights of (or taking whatever it wants by force from) a relatively powerless individual.

The idea that as long as we play nice and respect everyone else's rights, they'll reciprocate is cute but unrealistic.

This is not a call for protectionism though. It's a defense of the development of free trade agreements. Instead of trying to go it alone, we should be finding like minded trading partners and finding the most mutually advantageous terms for trade between and among the partners. Ad hoc protectionist measures should be defensive and should take place outside of these agreements as much as possible. The agreements should make them unnecessary.

Is that not what the WTO is for? If not, then why, FFS, did we abandon GATT? Oh, because it didn't work and people kept ignoring the "rules"? Gotcha.

wait.... uhhh....