There has been talk of the US performing a “stocktake” of free trade agreements – a stocktake that will likely end with New Zealand still being stung by quotas and tariffs when American citizens and New Zealand citizens want to trade.
This does not seem consistent with the platform of change that President Obama promised, not just the US, but the entire world. Please President – now is the time to show that you are a world leader that believes in freedom, that believes in a brighter day for all men, irrespective of their race or creed.
Please Mr President – show the world that you have the power to strike down the lobby groups, and fight for the liberties of both your own people and the people of the world. Give the citizens of our nations the freedom to trade for mutual benefit – and for the betterment of all.
Kiwiblog, Homepaddock, and the Standard express similarish sentiments.
15 comments
Nick C says:
March 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm (UTC 12 )
Matt you will be disappointed. Obama is just as influenced by the lobby groups (in this case the U.S. agriculture lobby) as any other politician. Hes just better at lying about it.
Also the standard didnt express a similar sentiment, it didnt really seem to care.
rauparaha says:
March 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm (UTC 12 )
C’mon, Matt, you know Obama’s vowed to make sure that the US keep its rightful place as the greatest nation on Earth. It may be hope and change for the US, but I think it’s still hope and pray for us
agnitio says:
March 9, 2009 at 6:01 pm (UTC 12 )
My new favorite word “similarish”
goonix says:
March 9, 2009 at 7:31 pm (UTC 12 )
Terrible stuff from Obama but I can’t say it’s that surprising. One of the reasons I never could have voted for him.
Matt Nolan says:
March 9, 2009 at 7:34 pm (UTC 12 )
@Nick C
The Standard was sort of similarish – they just had a slightly different target
Matt Nolan says:
March 9, 2009 at 7:34 pm (UTC 12 )
@rauparaha
I suppose trade is like a prisoner’s dilemma – and he’s just playing a dominant strategy
Matt Nolan says:
March 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm (UTC 12 )
@agnitio
And you love every second of it
Matt Nolan says:
March 9, 2009 at 7:36 pm (UTC 12 )
@goonix
Is another reason the fact that your not American?
goonix says:
March 9, 2009 at 8:59 pm (UTC 12 )
Yep, that’s why I said ‘one of’.
Matt Nolan says:
March 9, 2009 at 9:11 pm (UTC 12 )
@goonix
According to the quiz you would have voted Barr, and I would have voted Nader:
http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2008/10/30/political-quiz-part-deux-obama-vs-mccain/
goonix says:
March 9, 2009 at 10:13 pm (UTC 12 )
Yeah I would have. He wouldn’t have ruined the chance for our FTA!
Bernard Hickey says:
March 9, 2009 at 10:26 pm (UTC 12 )
Matt,
Obama did us all a favour. An FTA with America would have simply given US lobbyists a chance to destroy Pharmac, to restrict our Internet and to block Fonterra from America. Lobbyists spent US$3.2 bln on lobbying Congress last year. Bilateral deals like this just give the Americans a chance to pick off small trading nations one by one with a patchwork of unfair trading rules written by lobbyists.
We should concentrate on good multilateral deals which are less vulnerable to the sort of divide and rule that the lobbyists love.
Here’s my view http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/03/09/barack-obama-has-done-us-a-favour/
cheers
Bernard
Kimble says:
March 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm (UTC 12 )
“An FTA with America would have simply given US lobbyists a chance to destroy Pharmac…”
Would they destroy Pharmac? I mean, this is the administration that is seriously considering fixing pharmaceutical prices at the “world minimum*” and allowing the import of counterfeit medicines.
*set the max price in the US to be the lowest price bargained with overseas consumers.
Matt Nolan says:
March 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC 12 )
@goonix
I don’t know – he is a strange type of libertarian isn’t he?
Matt Nolan says:
March 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC 12 )
@Bernard Hickey
I guess that is the problem with bilateral trade agreements. However, if it isn’t in the nations interest we could have just rejected it right – implying that if we take on the agreement it should still be better than no agreement.