Why is the World Trade Organization bad?

Question

I'm completely neutral on this issue, and I'll admit that I'm ill-informed about the WTO.

Why is the WTO seen by some as an evil organization? What ethically wrong things have they done, what goals have they failed to meet, etc? Please cite specific examples. I've heard it compared to the North American Union plan, which is evidently stripping American rights, allowing for more outsourcing, etc.

Answer 1

As you illustrate in your question there are in fact two sides, adversaries and advocates for the WTO.  There are countless reasons as to why the WTO has adversaries but with limited time and space I hope that this will be helpful.  

The argument is that the WTO is a body or organization that does not allow for the "little" countries to participate due to the expensive conditions required to be accepted as a member.  For example, for a country to send processed foods to the United States, the country of origin has to include the ingredients, the nutritional content, etc.  For a country that is not well-off economically but has food to sell cannot join the WTO until producing the proper labeling.  Again there are countless reasons, but the aforementioned reason listed was selected in hopes of creating some insight into the cons of the WTO which is not completely bad.  Without the WTO, the amount of trade that is taking place in the world at the present day would not be possible.  With an increase in trade, economies across the world should (emphasis) increase proportionally which I think can be argued as a causation or correlation to the effects of the WTO.  I hopes this helps.

Answer 2

I really don't know enough about it aside from anything as secretive and cabbalistic cannot be entirely beneficial.

Answer 3

pink_angel hit this one right on the head.

Odd that the US will not abide by the WTO's policy decisions when disputes concerning unfair US trade practices are resolved in favor of another country, and odder still is the fact that such decisions are not published in the so-called 'paper of record' the "liberal' New York Times, nor discussed on any of the Sunday talk shows, and especially not Murdoch's media conglomerate.

If you really want to know, read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" (see quote below)

Answer 4

I see there's a lot of people here who have no idea what the WTO IS. The WTO is a negotiation platform, so, there is no "THEY" robbing us and outsourcing us. Also, it is not secretive: everything that "they" do is out on the open on their website.

So, to explain a bit: the WTO is a negotiation platform where countries come together to solve trade disputes, with the overall goal, in the end, to remove ALL trade barriers. There is also a secretariat and a dispute settlement mechanism, but the rules and decisions made by the WTO in the end are created and agreed upon by the countries who signed up to it - so if you don't like it, complain to your President, not the WTO.

WHy is it bad then? Well, I personally do not think it is bad, BUT the criticisms of the well-informed people, not the blather you've seen here, does make sense. It boils down to the following few points:

1. "The overall goal of removing all trade barriers is bad." This is a typical economy-debate. Most economists have elaborate mathematical proofs showing that with free trade, in the long run, everyone will be better of. The problem is that "in the long run, we're all dead" (Keynes said this). So, for every trade liberalization, you have winners, and you have losers. For example, by freeing up trade in agricultural products, the losers are the corn farmers of the US-Midwest (and the French). The winners are people who can produce corn cheaper somewhere else, and the consumer, who can now use corn at a lower price.

2. "The WTO impinges on national soevereignty".

Since the WTO embodies a set of rules, if you want to join as a country, you give up regulating these areas yourself. Moreover, the set of rules are sometimes also used to override national policies. A famous example is the "Tuna-Fisheries Case": the US wanted to ban Mexican tuna for the domestic market, since it used dolphin-unfriendly cathching methods. Mexico then filed a lawsuit, and the GATT (the precursor to the WTO, so this has also become WTO-rules) ruled that Mexican tuna should be freely traded to the US, and thereby it severly hindered the ability of the US to actually do something about the "accidental" killing of dolphins.

As I said: these arguments do hold water. I do not think they are enough to actually be against the WTO as a whole; they just point at that some rulings and policies are bad. But, o draw an analogy, disagreeing with George Bush is also not reason enough to disband the United States, is it?

Yours is a good question, sir. I am looking forward to more dimwitted answers to it ;)

Answer 5

from the decisions handed down they basically override other nations courts. for example when some nations didn't want gmo foods the company mansato I think that is how it is spelled went to the wto and complained and they ruled in favor of mansato, which means these countries had to accept gmo foods or pay huge fines to mansato for the loss of money they would have made if the gmo were accepted. the main agenda is that there are to be no hinderance to free trade, so if they want to sell poisened food and a country doens't want it, look out.

another instance, several hundred farmers in canada were sued by mansato because they claimed they violated patent rights. well here is the thing, the farmers didn't even know their seeds gmo, were growing by their roadsides ditches. the wto through the canadian courts sued the farmers and won.

they thought they were just weeds, it turns out if any patented seeds fall on your property from trucks going by or birds or animals, they your liabel for patent infringment. isn't that a crock!!! in other words if your plants get cross polinated by gmo crops your lible. in other words they are not responsible to containing their seeds but your responsible for keeping them out of your yard.

victims are responsble for the criminals do. so what they are basically saying is that the purpose of our lives is to make companies profit and if we protect our rights and cause them to lose profit (as opposed to them actually doing something to make a product desirable or making a better product)they sue for profit infrignment under the label free trade.

so what they want is not to have to make a better product or anything they want to invest in something and if the product is not desirable or good, rather than forefeiting the investments as just the cost of doing business they want us to have to accept their junk just so they don't lose the money they invested.

wto organization is basically geared towards protecting companies and their profits not free trade, free trade is a doublespeak. free trade definition is different for us then their definition of free trade.

we hear free trade we think all should be allowed to a part of teh market to share in it too, you know be allowed in with others and not be hindered by unfair laws.

free trade to them is being able to freely peddle anything they want and not be hindered by human rights, safety laws or consumer desire. that means no restrictions or controls freedom to steal other resources or to kill with their products. this is what the wto is all about.

RRRR

Answer 6

Well, it's very good for multinational organizations and their stockholders...they get to take over Third World countries and strip them of their natural resources, and if the natives dare to protest, they have the armed forces of various superpowers, such as the US, to protect their interests...they go in and kick butt and young men and women die.  

It's not good for the rest of us , our jobs are outsourced, cheap plastic c r a p is imported, our military budget is in the trillions, paid for by US taxes, and we basically owe China our children and grandchildren's future.

EDIT-Thanks a lot absintdaniel or whatever your name is, it's not too often I get called brainless.  I'd be offended except I see that you don't accept email, therefore, I conclude that you are some kind of conservative troll who probably works for the world bank or does business with China. Thank you for your arrogance.