Thanks. When we (the Europeans) do something to uphold the law and rules we've both agreed to (dunno, patents for example?), we're jerks, but when you go and do something similar (let alone invade other countries without just cause), that's OK. So we're jerks. Good that that's clear now. Easier to proceed (no need to be courteous anymore I guess).
Regs, Jarkko
You want to play the political game? Fine:
We had all the just cause in the world to go into Afghan, and NONE of us wanted to go into Iraq.
Infact, the ONLY European country who 'upholded' their NATO agreement was Britain!
How do you like THAT for upholding laws and rules...
We had all the just cause in the world to go into Afghan, and NONE of us wanted to go into Iraq.
Infact, the ONLY European country who 'upholded' their NATO agreement was Britain!
How do you like THAT for upholding laws and rules...
Calm down. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the original poster's comment by taking an exaggeratedly one sided view.
Take a look at how many different nations actually operate in Afganistan (Finns included and we're not even part of NATO) to support your just cause. Iraq was different. Who said that NATO membership means that if one NATO member attacks another country without just cause, everyone should join? It's after all a defence pact, not an offence pact. And some of you must have wanted to go to Iraq on false pretenses since you did actually go there. As to why Britaid joined? It really has nothing to do with NATO, more with hoping for political favours in the long run.
Nah. You got it all wrong. It's all about the tires (now Nokian tyres) and the cables (NK cables). You see after a long period of using the cables for morse coded messaging when the weather was so bad that not even Nokia tyres could transport you, they thought of something better as they didn't want to make cables or tyres anymore. They wanted instead to stay at home so that you didn't have to see anyone anymore (cables have to be maintained and you might actually see a scary human being). But you still have to communicatite to order milk and presto the wireless communication device was created!
So you see, nothing to do with the TVs, computers and military communication systems. It's all a derivative of their car tyre and cable businesses.
Regs, Jarkko (a Finn)
P.S. No-one here is qualified to go through and interpret the thousands of pages of technical documents that will no doubt make up this case, so may as well have a bit of fun...
Sure they did. And they've been supplying the cabling for the communist underground listening stations. The rubber boots were made for the communist armies as well. Naturally you know we were a key member in the Communist block and Nokia was the supplier for rubber and communications for the whole block's military installations.
Thanks. When we (the Europeans) do something to uphold the law and rules we've both agreed to (dunno, patents for example?), we're jerks, but when you go and do something similar (let alone invade other countries without just cause), that's OK. So we're jerks. Good that that's clear now. Easier to proceed (no need to be courteous anymore I guess).
Regs, Jarkko
Yes. EU vs Microsoft. EU vs Apple. EU vs Oracle/Sun. EU vs Boeing/McDonnell Douglas (waaaay back in 94) and EU vs Boeing in 2004. Delays, fines, and general harassment of major US tech companies in the interest of EU companies like Airbus. Fortunately the WTO has ruled for US/Boeing and against EU/Airbus last September but that saga will lasts for several more years.
Whether or not the US had just cause for wars belongs in Apple Outsider.
But it is ok when both companies are American, like when Broadcom took on Qualcomm?
No and the US Appeals Court threw out ITCs ban because you can't extend a limited ban to anyone outside the named parties (i.e. you can't ban products that use chips from qualcomm...you can only ban qualcomm chips).
The ITC was the wrong venue for Broadcom. Likewise the ITC is the wrong venue for Nokia.
Calm down. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the original poster's comment by taking an exaggeratedly one sided view.
Sure, it's one sided. Just like all trade disputes are one sided in favor of your own country. However, the EU plays more legal games than the US using the courts to help EU companies compete and protect EU markets and it's frigging annoying.
I can only assume when we are a declining power that we'll resort to doing the same asinine things to China if they begin to out innovate us just like the EU.
Nokia never should have put their patents into the pool if they are going to whine like little babies when a competitor starts beating the crap out of them. If they are asking for the same RAND royalties as they might for any other phone maker fine...but if they did I'd guess that Apple would simply have paid.
Apple won't cross license their own patents just because Nokia wants them and hasn't demanded from other phone makers.
In Apple's complaint:
"Article 81. In Particular, in or about the spring of 2008, Nokia demanded that, as part of it’s compensation for licensing Nokia’s portfolio of purported essential patents, Apple must grant Nokia a license to a particular number of Apple non-standards-essential patents"
"Article 82. In or about May 2009, Nokia demanded a royalty approximately three times as much as the royalty proposed the prior spring, which was itself in excess of a F/RAND rate, as well as “picks’ to Apple’s non-standards-essential patents."
There's no way in hell Apple should have agreed but if Nokia wants to sue them for damages that's fine. Asking for a ITC ban on all Apple products in the US is just asinine and I hope it completely backfires. Joka toiselle kuoppaa kaivaa, se itse siihen lankeaa.
Sure, it's one sided. Just like all trade disputes are one sided in favor of your own country. However, the EU plays more legal games than the US using the courts to help EU companies compete and protect EU markets and it's frigging annoying.
While the US government just pays illegal subsidies to their companies (such as your diary farmers) to enable them to compete, and it's frigging annoying...
While the US government just pays illegal subsidies to their companies (such as your diary farmers) to enable them to compete, and it's frigging annoying...
But that's ok, it is America doing it...
Since when is given a one time payment to dairy farmersas part of the stimulus illegal?
The price for milk dropped from $16.80 per cwt to $12.23 per cwt so the dairy farmers were getting hammered because of lower demand. Subsidies aren't to help farmers compete as much stay alive.
Lets see, the EU gave $420M to their dairy famers (280M Euros) because those guys block traffic in the streets and burn tires but our $290M subsidies are illegal?
US, NZ and Australian dairy farmers took it on the chin from Europe and you blame the US? The US move was in RESPONSE to the EU move. Both of which are allowed under WTO rules so neither is "illegal".
Plus Obama signed a memo eliminating tarrif on Isreali dairy products and US imports of dairy products have gone from $800M to $3B...and we're turning hundreds of thousands of milk cows into hamburgers. WTF has the EU done for your dairy guys? But nooo...the US is the bad guy. You clearly have no biases there...
Since when is given a one time payment to dairy farmersas part of the stimulus illegal?
When trade agreements say it is. And if there is no issue with them, why did the US complain so much (and went to the WTO about it) when Canada paid their dairy farmers subsidies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The price for milk dropped from $16.80 per cwt to $12.23 per cwt so the dairy farmers were getting hammered because of lower demand. Subsidies aren't to help farmers compete as much stay alive.
No, the US and EU provided subsidies as both the US and the EU could not produce milk as cheap as other countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Lets see, the EU gave $420M to their dairy famers (280M Euros) because those guys block traffic in the streets and burn tires but our $290M subsidies are illegal?
I think you will find it is the French that block the traffic etc, and while they are part of, they are not "the EU"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
US, NZ and Australian dairy farmers took it on the chin from Europe and you blame the US? The US move was in RESPONSE to the EU move. Both of which are allowed under WTO rules so neither is "illegal".
No they did, the US responsed by providing subsidies of their own, and NZ have protested to both governments about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Plus Obama signed a memo eliminating tarrif on Isreali dairy products and US imports of dairy products have gone from $800M to $3B...and we're turning hundreds of thousands of milk cows into hamburgers. WTF has the EU done for your dairy guys? But nooo...the US is the bad guy. You clearly have no biases there...
What are you on about? I see it is acceptable for you to hassle another nation, but the second someone questions yours everyone is mean to you? I think we see the bias right there...
It's actually quite telling that you elected to ignore that you committed the same transgression you had the gall to call another party out for.
It is not okay for you to point out to another party what you FEEL they have done by doing it yourself.
That is the definition of hypocrisy, and makes anything you stated before or after it null and void. Essentially non-existent.
Meaning all anyone will remember is the insult you threw.
Nice job keeping that higher ground....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
The minute you mention one race, and ignore the other it becomes one.
You might want to check you history a bit, you never sent any possums over to NZ, the governor of the countries at the time (who was from the UK) thought it was a good idea to bring some over. And yes we kill tonnes of them, it is a national passtime did you not know?
If it were against WTO rules, neither the US or the EU could have done so without severe repercussions.
Quote:
No, the US and EU provided subsidies as both the US and the EU could not produce milk as cheap as other countries.
US farmers are well able to compete when the EU isn't subsidizing their dairy farmers. In fact that had been a sticking point between the US and EU for a while.
Quote:
I think you will find it is the French that block the traffic etc, and while they are part of, they are not "the EU"
False.
"Over 2500 farmers from across the EU blockaded the area outside the European Union's headquarters, burning tires and hay outside an emergency meeting of farm ministers"
"Following weeks of protests by dairy farmers across the EU, the European Agriculture Commissioner proposed on Monday injecting €280 million into the troubled European dairy sector."
Gee I thought it was us dumb americans that didn't know what country Brussels is in. Hint: It's not France.
Quote:
No they did, the US responsed by providing subsidies of their own, and NZ have protested to both governments about them.
So the EU enacted subsidies harming US farmers and the US had no choice but to respond. How is this the fault of the US and not the EU?
Quote:
What are you on about? I see it is acceptable for you to hassle another nation, but the second someone questions yours everyone is mean to you? I think we see the bias right there...
I'm on about you blaming the US for something the EU instigated by enacting subsidies FIRST after everyone told them that if they did so other countries would likely respond in kind. Which the US did.
And some folks (even in NZ) blame overproduction in NZ for falling dairy prices leading to those EU subsidies.
"the New Zealand dairy industry, led by Fonterra, may have to bear its share of the blame...export subsidies were all but unavoidable due to the astonishing fall in dairy prices, caused by lowered demand worldwide and overproduction from New Zealand – Fonterra, responsible for 94% of our production, controls nearly 40% of global trade.
...
the co-operative’s former managing director of global trade, John Shaskey, believes Fonterra’s lax sales attitude has flooded the market with product"
If it were against WTO rules, neither the US or the EU could have done so without severe repercussions.
I didn't say WTO in that bit, I said trade agreements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
US farmers are well able to compete when the EU isn't subsidizing their dairy farmers. In fact that had been a sticking point between the US and EU for a while.
So it is the EUs fault you can't compete against countries not subsidising?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
False.
Honest mistake, it is always the french doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So the EU enacted subsidies harming US farmers and the US had no choice but to respond. How is this the fault of the US and not the EU?
No, they didn't have to response, I am not blaming either side, I am just commenting on how people were being so one sided with their responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I'm on about you blaming the US for something the EU instigated by enacting subsidies FIRST after everyone told them that if they did so other countries would likely respond in kind. Which the US did.
Like I said, just because someone does something, that doesn't mean you have to do it as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And some folks (even in NZ) blame overproduction in NZ for falling dairy prices leading to those EU subsidies.
It might have been, I don't really care about the cause, but in both cases the results is still the same, the US and EU governments are artificially making a local business sustainable when it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Please at least pick an example that you are not clueless about.
That's right, because you are a freeking genius about everything.
I didn't say WTO in that bit, I said trade agreements.
Name them if you're so sure. Thus far you've been wrong on every point.
Quote:
So it is the EUs fault you can't compete against countries not subsidising?
It IS the EU's fault that we cannot compete against THIER subsidized dairy farmers, yes.
Quote:
No, they didn't have to response, I am not blaming either side, I am just commenting on how people were being so one sided with their responses.
Yes, we did if we didn't want US dairy farmers to go broke competing against subsidized EU farmers and NZ farmers trashing the dairy market for short term gain.
Quote:
Like I said, just because someone does something, that doesn't mean you have to do it as well.
Yes, we could just leave our citizens hanging and let the EU farmers get all the sales.
Quote:
It might have been, I don't really care about the cause, but in both cases the results is still the same, the US and EU governments are artificially making a local business sustainable when it is not.
Arguably because your dairy farmers help trash the market through overproduction making our local businesses unsustainable in the first place. But then, you don't care about the cause, just that YOUR farmers are hurt.
Golly gosh gee batman, that seems awfully one sided to me and the same attitude you're whining about. I would have thought that was irony except you're not being ironic...just oblivious.
Quote:
That's right, because you are a freeking genius about everything.
At least I didn't bring up a point that was completely stupid where you whine that the EU and then US are subsidizing their dairy farmers to the detriment of local NZ dairy farmers AFTER NZ farmers trashed the dairy market by over producing causing the EU to start the chain reaction. At least we're eating our cows to try to rectify the problem so subsidies can end when prices recover. What has NZ done?
Get real. There are plenty of things the US does that's mean or just plain ol' stupid. Every country does because we're all human.
This wasn't one of them but I'm not going to find them for you so you can bash us.
Name them if you're so sure. Thus far you've been wrong on every point.
No I haven't, that is your belief, which is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
It IS the EU's fault that we cannot compete against THIER subsidized dairy farmers, yes.
The world is much bigger than just the EU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, we did if we didn't want US dairy farmers to go broke competing against subsidized EU farmers and NZ farmers trashing the dairy market for short term gain.
All you are doing is pumping the tax payers money down the drain. If keeping a unsubstainable industry alive is so important, why isn't the US subsiding manufacturing industries to stop businesses moving to China?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Arguably because your dairy farmers help trash the market through overproduction making our local businesses unsustainable in the first place. But then, you don't care about the cause, just that YOUR farmers are hurt.
My dairy farmers?? What do you mean my dairy farmers, when have I mentioned who "my" people are, yes you know what country I live in, I am never said which country I am from though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Golly gosh gee batman, that seems awfully one sided to me and the same attitude you're whining about. I would have thought that was irony except you're not being ironic...just oblivious.
Getting back to the original comment I brought up, why did the user mention things about one party in the original article, but ignored the two other companies that happen to be American, that is the question, one they still haven't answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
At least I didn't bring up a point that was completely stupid where you whine that the EU and then US are subsidizing their dairy farmers to the detriment of local NZ dairy farmers AFTER NZ farmers trashed the dairy market by over producing causing the EU to start the chain reaction. At least we're eating our cows to try to rectify the problem so subsidies can end when prices recover. What has NZ done?
No, you were the one that said the EU was so mean to the American companies. Do you also bash the Chinese and Indians etc for selling labour so cheaply that businesses has left the US for these other countries? As for what NZ has done, I think they have done very well at producing a product cheaper than their competitors and still being able to get full market rates from it, without the need for subsidies. They also grow cows for meat in NZ, they taste quite nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
This wasn't one of them but I'm not going to find them for you so you can bash us.
I haven't bashed you, I asked a question, very different, you might be getting a little bit emotive if you think otherwise.
Calm down. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the original poster's comment by taking an exaggeratedly one sided view.
Take a look at how many different nations actually operate in Afganistan (Finns included and we're not even part of NATO) to support your just cause. Iraq was different. Who said that NATO membership means that if one NATO member attacks another country without just cause, everyone should join? It's after all a defence pact, not an offence pact. And some of you must have wanted to go to Iraq on false pretenses since you did actually go there. As to why Britaid joined? It really has nothing to do with NATO, more with hoping for political favours in the long run.
Regs, Jarkko
Our cause ??
You finns love to sit under the safe skirt of the USA and bitch . Your jokes are stupid.
American boys are dead keeping you safe .Try a little respect fool .
Comments
Thanks. When we (the Europeans) do something to uphold the law and rules we've both agreed to (dunno, patents for example?), we're jerks, but when you go and do something similar (let alone invade other countries without just cause), that's OK. So we're jerks. Good that that's clear now. Easier to proceed (no need to be courteous anymore I guess).
Regs, Jarkko
You want to play the political game? Fine:
We had all the just cause in the world to go into Afghan, and NONE of us wanted to go into Iraq.
Infact, the ONLY European country who 'upholded' their NATO agreement was Britain!
How do you like THAT for upholding laws and rules...
You want to play the political game? Fine:
We had all the just cause in the world to go into Afghan, and NONE of us wanted to go into Iraq.
Infact, the ONLY European country who 'upholded' their NATO agreement was Britain!
How do you like THAT for upholding laws and rules...
Calm down. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the original poster's comment by taking an exaggeratedly one sided view.
Take a look at how many different nations actually operate in Afganistan (Finns included and we're not even part of NATO) to support your just cause. Iraq was different. Who said that NATO membership means that if one NATO member attacks another country without just cause, everyone should join? It's after all a defence pact, not an offence pact. And some of you must have wanted to go to Iraq on false pretenses since you did actually go there. As to why Britaid joined? It really has nothing to do with NATO, more with hoping for political favours in the long run.
Regs, Jarkko
...didn't they have to provide cabling to the Russians as part of the AXIS war reparations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0
Nah. You got it all wrong. It's all about the tires (now Nokian tyres) and the cables (NK cables). You see after a long period of using the cables for morse coded messaging when the weather was so bad that not even Nokia tyres could transport you, they thought of something better as they didn't want to make cables or tyres anymore. They wanted instead to stay at home so that you didn't have to see anyone anymore (cables have to be maintained and you might actually see a scary human being). But you still have to communicatite to order milk and presto the wireless communication device was created!
So you see, nothing to do with the TVs, computers and military communication systems. It's all a derivative of their car tyre and cable businesses.
Regs, Jarkko (a Finn)
P.S. No-one here is qualified to go through and interpret the thousands of pages of technical documents that will no doubt make up this case, so may as well have a bit of fun...
...it must be my convict streak.
NK cables...
...didn't they have to provide cabling to the Russians as part of the AXIS war reparations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0
Sure they did. And they've been supplying the cabling for the communist underground listening stations. The rubber boots were made for the communist armies as well. Naturally you know we were a key member in the Communist block and Nokia was the supplier for rubber and communications for the whole block's military installations.
Regs, Jarkko
Thanks. When we (the Europeans) do something to uphold the law and rules we've both agreed to (dunno, patents for example?), we're jerks, but when you go and do something similar (let alone invade other countries without just cause), that's OK. So we're jerks. Good that that's clear now. Easier to proceed (no need to be courteous anymore I guess).
Regs, Jarkko
Yes. EU vs Microsoft. EU vs Apple. EU vs Oracle/Sun. EU vs Boeing/McDonnell Douglas (waaaay back in 94) and EU vs Boeing in 2004. Delays, fines, and general harassment of major US tech companies in the interest of EU companies like Airbus. Fortunately the WTO has ruled for US/Boeing and against EU/Airbus last September but that saga will lasts for several more years.
Whether or not the US had just cause for wars belongs in Apple Outsider.
But it is ok when both companies are American, like when Broadcom took on Qualcomm?
No and the US Appeals Court threw out ITCs ban because you can't extend a limited ban to anyone outside the named parties (i.e. you can't ban products that use chips from qualcomm...you can only ban qualcomm chips).
The ITC was the wrong venue for Broadcom. Likewise the ITC is the wrong venue for Nokia.
Calm down. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the original poster's comment by taking an exaggeratedly one sided view.
Sure, it's one sided. Just like all trade disputes are one sided in favor of your own country. However, the EU plays more legal games than the US using the courts to help EU companies compete and protect EU markets and it's frigging annoying.
I can only assume when we are a declining power that we'll resort to doing the same asinine things to China if they begin to out innovate us just like the EU.
Nokia never should have put their patents into the pool if they are going to whine like little babies when a competitor starts beating the crap out of them. If they are asking for the same RAND royalties as they might for any other phone maker fine...but if they did I'd guess that Apple would simply have paid.
Apple won't cross license their own patents just because Nokia wants them and hasn't demanded from other phone makers.
In Apple's complaint:
"Article 81. In Particular, in or about the spring of 2008, Nokia demanded that, as part of it’s compensation for licensing Nokia’s portfolio of purported essential patents, Apple must grant Nokia a license to a particular number of Apple non-standards-essential patents"
"Article 82. In or about May 2009, Nokia demanded a royalty approximately three times as much as the royalty proposed the prior spring, which was itself in excess of a F/RAND rate, as well as “picks’ to Apple’s non-standards-essential patents."
There's no way in hell Apple should have agreed but if Nokia wants to sue them for damages that's fine. Asking for a ITC ban on all Apple products in the US is just asinine and I hope it completely backfires. Joka toiselle kuoppaa kaivaa, se itse siihen lankeaa.
Frankly, I expected better from Finns.
Sure, it's one sided. Just like all trade disputes are one sided in favor of your own country. However, the EU plays more legal games than the US using the courts to help EU companies compete and protect EU markets and it's frigging annoying.
While the US government just pays illegal subsidies to their companies (such as your diary farmers) to enable them to compete, and it's frigging annoying...
But that's ok, it is America doing it...
While the US government just pays illegal subsidies to their companies (such as your diary farmers) to enable them to compete, and it's frigging annoying...
But that's ok, it is America doing it...
Since when is given a one time payment to dairy farmersas part of the stimulus illegal?
The price for milk dropped from $16.80 per cwt to $12.23 per cwt so the dairy farmers were getting hammered because of lower demand. Subsidies aren't to help farmers compete as much stay alive.
Lets see, the EU gave $420M to their dairy famers (280M Euros) because those guys block traffic in the streets and burn tires but our $290M subsidies are illegal?
US, NZ and Australian dairy farmers took it on the chin from Europe and you blame the US? The US move was in RESPONSE to the EU move. Both of which are allowed under WTO rules so neither is "illegal".
Plus Obama signed a memo eliminating tarrif on Isreali dairy products and US imports of dairy products have gone from $800M to $3B...and we're turning hundreds of thousands of milk cows into hamburgers. WTF has the EU done for your dairy guys? But nooo...the US is the bad guy. You clearly have no biases there...
Since when is given a one time payment to dairy farmersas part of the stimulus illegal?
When trade agreements say it is. And if there is no issue with them, why did the US complain so much (and went to the WTO about it) when Canada paid their dairy farmers subsidies?
The price for milk dropped from $16.80 per cwt to $12.23 per cwt so the dairy farmers were getting hammered because of lower demand. Subsidies aren't to help farmers compete as much stay alive.
No, the US and EU provided subsidies as both the US and the EU could not produce milk as cheap as other countries.
Lets see, the EU gave $420M to their dairy famers (280M Euros) because those guys block traffic in the streets and burn tires but our $290M subsidies are illegal?
I think you will find it is the French that block the traffic etc, and while they are part of, they are not "the EU"
US, NZ and Australian dairy farmers took it on the chin from Europe and you blame the US? The US move was in RESPONSE to the EU move. Both of which are allowed under WTO rules so neither is "illegal".
No they did, the US responsed by providing subsidies of their own, and NZ have protested to both governments about them.
Plus Obama signed a memo eliminating tarrif on Isreali dairy products and US imports of dairy products have gone from $800M to $3B...and we're turning hundreds of thousands of milk cows into hamburgers. WTF has the EU done for your dairy guys? But nooo...the US is the bad guy. You clearly have no biases there...
What are you on about? I see it is acceptable for you to hassle another nation, but the second someone questions yours everyone is mean to you? I think we see the bias right there...
It is not okay for you to point out to another party what you FEEL they have done by doing it yourself.
That is the definition of hypocrisy, and makes anything you stated before or after it null and void. Essentially non-existent.
Meaning all anyone will remember is the insult you threw.
Nice job keeping that higher ground....
The minute you mention one race, and ignore the other it becomes one.
You might want to check you history a bit, you never sent any possums over to NZ, the governor of the countries at the time (who was from the UK) thought it was a good idea to bring some over. And yes we kill tonnes of them, it is a national passtime did you not know?
It's actually quite telling that you elected to ignore that you committed the same transgression you had the gall to call another party out for.
And what did the bit you quoted have to do with that little speech?
When trade agreements say it is.
If it were against WTO rules, neither the US or the EU could have done so without severe repercussions.
No, the US and EU provided subsidies as both the US and the EU could not produce milk as cheap as other countries.
US farmers are well able to compete when the EU isn't subsidizing their dairy farmers. In fact that had been a sticking point between the US and EU for a while.
I think you will find it is the French that block the traffic etc, and while they are part of, they are not "the EU"
False.
"Over 2500 farmers from across the EU blockaded the area outside the European Union's headquarters, burning tires and hay outside an emergency meeting of farm ministers"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ows-udder.html
"Following weeks of protests by dairy farmers across the EU, the European Agriculture Commissioner proposed on Monday injecting €280 million into the troubled European dairy sector."
http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/57418/
Gee I thought it was us dumb americans that didn't know what country Brussels is in. Hint: It's not France.
No they did, the US responsed by providing subsidies of their own, and NZ have protested to both governments about them.
So the EU enacted subsidies harming US farmers and the US had no choice but to respond. How is this the fault of the US and not the EU?
What are you on about? I see it is acceptable for you to hassle another nation, but the second someone questions yours everyone is mean to you? I think we see the bias right there...
I'm on about you blaming the US for something the EU instigated by enacting subsidies FIRST after everyone told them that if they did so other countries would likely respond in kind. Which the US did.
And some folks (even in NZ) blame overproduction in NZ for falling dairy prices leading to those EU subsidies.
"the New Zealand dairy industry, led by Fonterra, may have to bear its share of the blame...export subsidies were all but unavoidable due to the astonishing fall in dairy prices, caused by lowered demand worldwide and overproduction from New Zealand – Fonterra, responsible for 94% of our production, controls nearly 40% of global trade.
...
the co-operative’s former managing director of global trade, John Shaskey, believes Fonterra’s lax sales attitude has flooded the market with product"
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kiwi-da...s-coming-39872
Ooops.
Please at least pick an example that you are not clueless about.
If it were against WTO rules, neither the US or the EU could have done so without severe repercussions.
I didn't say WTO in that bit, I said trade agreements.
US farmers are well able to compete when the EU isn't subsidizing their dairy farmers. In fact that had been a sticking point between the US and EU for a while.
So it is the EUs fault you can't compete against countries not subsidising?
False.
Honest mistake, it is always the french doing that.
So the EU enacted subsidies harming US farmers and the US had no choice but to respond. How is this the fault of the US and not the EU?
No, they didn't have to response, I am not blaming either side, I am just commenting on how people were being so one sided with their responses.
I'm on about you blaming the US for something the EU instigated by enacting subsidies FIRST after everyone told them that if they did so other countries would likely respond in kind. Which the US did.
Like I said, just because someone does something, that doesn't mean you have to do it as well.
And some folks (even in NZ) blame overproduction in NZ for falling dairy prices leading to those EU subsidies.
It might have been, I don't really care about the cause, but in both cases the results is still the same, the US and EU governments are artificially making a local business sustainable when it is not.
Please at least pick an example that you are not clueless about.
That's right, because you are a freeking genius about everything.
I didn't say WTO in that bit, I said trade agreements.
Name them if you're so sure. Thus far you've been wrong on every point.
So it is the EUs fault you can't compete against countries not subsidising?
It IS the EU's fault that we cannot compete against THIER subsidized dairy farmers, yes.
No, they didn't have to response, I am not blaming either side, I am just commenting on how people were being so one sided with their responses.
Yes, we did if we didn't want US dairy farmers to go broke competing against subsidized EU farmers and NZ farmers trashing the dairy market for short term gain.
Like I said, just because someone does something, that doesn't mean you have to do it as well.
Yes, we could just leave our citizens hanging and let the EU farmers get all the sales.
It might have been, I don't really care about the cause, but in both cases the results is still the same, the US and EU governments are artificially making a local business sustainable when it is not.
Arguably because your dairy farmers help trash the market through overproduction making our local businesses unsustainable in the first place. But then, you don't care about the cause, just that YOUR farmers are hurt.
Golly gosh gee batman, that seems awfully one sided to me and the same attitude you're whining about. I would have thought that was irony except you're not being ironic...just oblivious.
That's right, because you are a freeking genius about everything.
At least I didn't bring up a point that was completely stupid where you whine that the EU and then US are subsidizing their dairy farmers to the detriment of local NZ dairy farmers AFTER NZ farmers trashed the dairy market by over producing causing the EU to start the chain reaction. At least we're eating our cows to try to rectify the problem so subsidies can end when prices recover. What has NZ done?
Get real. There are plenty of things the US does that's mean or just plain ol' stupid. Every country does because we're all human.
This wasn't one of them but I'm not going to find them for you so you can bash us.
Name them if you're so sure. Thus far you've been wrong on every point.
No I haven't, that is your belief, which is wrong.
It IS the EU's fault that we cannot compete against THIER subsidized dairy farmers, yes.
The world is much bigger than just the EU.
Yes, we did if we didn't want US dairy farmers to go broke competing against subsidized EU farmers and NZ farmers trashing the dairy market for short term gain.
All you are doing is pumping the tax payers money down the drain. If keeping a unsubstainable industry alive is so important, why isn't the US subsiding manufacturing industries to stop businesses moving to China?
Arguably because your dairy farmers help trash the market through overproduction making our local businesses unsustainable in the first place. But then, you don't care about the cause, just that YOUR farmers are hurt.
My dairy farmers?? What do you mean my dairy farmers, when have I mentioned who "my" people are, yes you know what country I live in, I am never said which country I am from though.
Golly gosh gee batman, that seems awfully one sided to me and the same attitude you're whining about. I would have thought that was irony except you're not being ironic...just oblivious.
Getting back to the original comment I brought up, why did the user mention things about one party in the original article, but ignored the two other companies that happen to be American, that is the question, one they still haven't answered.
At least I didn't bring up a point that was completely stupid where you whine that the EU and then US are subsidizing their dairy farmers to the detriment of local NZ dairy farmers AFTER NZ farmers trashed the dairy market by over producing causing the EU to start the chain reaction. At least we're eating our cows to try to rectify the problem so subsidies can end when prices recover. What has NZ done?
No, you were the one that said the EU was so mean to the American companies. Do you also bash the Chinese and Indians etc for selling labour so cheaply that businesses has left the US for these other countries? As for what NZ has done, I think they have done very well at producing a product cheaper than their competitors and still being able to get full market rates from it, without the need for subsidies. They also grow cows for meat in NZ, they taste quite nice.
This wasn't one of them but I'm not going to find them for you so you can bash us.
I haven't bashed you, I asked a question, very different, you might be getting a little bit emotive if you think otherwise.
NOKIA and FINLAND both promote each other every chance they get .So excuse us if we state the ...
peace
9
Calm down. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the original poster's comment by taking an exaggeratedly one sided view.
Take a look at how many different nations actually operate in Afganistan (Finns included and we're not even part of NATO) to support your just cause. Iraq was different. Who said that NATO membership means that if one NATO member attacks another country without just cause, everyone should join? It's after all a defence pact, not an offence pact. And some of you must have wanted to go to Iraq on false pretenses since you did actually go there. As to why Britaid joined? It really has nothing to do with NATO, more with hoping for political favours in the long run.
Regs, Jarkko
Our cause ??
You finns love to sit under the safe skirt of the USA and bitch . Your jokes are stupid.
American boys are dead keeping you safe .Try a little respect fool .
W
No, the US and EU provided subsidies as both the US and the EU could not produce milk as cheap as other countries.
..
MILK ????
YOU want to ship milk across oceans ???
MILK ??
mooooo juice is local