Japan wants certain products, such as rice, exempt from tariffs, before it joins the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade talks. Do you think this is a reasonable request?

Have Your Say Feb. 05, 2013 - 06:21AM JST ( 25 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

25 Comments

4

herefornowFeb. 05, 2013 - 07:17AM JST

Absolutely not. Free trade means Free trade. Japan ask for no tariffs on the cars and electronics it wants to export but protect things itself.
-1

vollandFeb. 05, 2013 - 08:43AM JST

Normal and obvious, Yes!

Reasonable, of course not! What a question...
6

2020hindsightsFeb. 05, 2013 - 08:47AM JST

No. The whole point of the TPP is to remove tariffs to benefit everyone. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Most Japanese don't seem to realize that removing the rice tariff will benefit everyone.
6

Pukey2Feb. 05, 2013 - 08:51AM JST

No, you can't have your cake and eat it! Japan wants everything to their advantage without sharing the benefits? Do they know the concept of trading? While we're at it, bring me the basmati now (and at normal prices not inflated prices)!!!
1

WakarimasenFeb. 05, 2013 - 11:39AM JST

No.
-4

The passageFeb. 05, 2013 - 12:21PM JST

US protects its airline industry from foreigners, so why not?
-2

SamuraiBlueFeb. 05, 2013 - 12:43PM JST

US protects it's sugar business as well.
-2

SamuraiBlueFeb. 05, 2013 - 12:48PM JST

As for agricultural policy it really doesn't benefit many.

For example most nations provide subsidies and tax breaks to the farmer so they continue farming without going broke. The subsidies are at the end pulled out of the tax payer's pockets.
-1

SimondBFeb. 05, 2013 - 01:52PM JST

Free trade in it's purest form means very, very, low paid workers exporting goods to your country for a fraction of the cost that your country pays to produce the same goods. The end result is the very, very low paid workers from the exporting country continue to be very, very, low paid workers and the workers in the country they are exporting to lose their jobs. The only winners are those at the top of the chain. And they win big. Very big.

Fair trade, Yes. Unfettered Free trade, No.
1

sillygirlFeb. 06, 2013 - 05:05AM JST

No
2

JaymannFeb. 06, 2013 - 06:46AM JST

Free trade means a product worth its actual value on the market and less tax for the consumer. Japanese farmers have suck at the teat of the tax payer for too long; couple with their staggeringly undemocratic inflated voting power they represent one of the largest impediments to Japan's future. NO - remove all tariffs and subsidies. If they are inefficient then they should go bust. Simple - the market will decide.
2

ChibaChickFeb. 06, 2013 - 08:57AM JST

Dont see what the problem is. Surely if Japanese rice is as unique and delicious as they claim it to be, you would think they would be happy to be removing all trade barriers, confident in the knowledge that their superior product will pee all over the competition? No?
-3

Betraythetrust!Feb. 06, 2013 - 09:04AM JST

@ChibaChick

TPP is not as simple as that nor are any free trade talks. People say they want cheaper foods but do not consider what that entails. Let's just say the endgame will be something like this. Most foods will be grown by a smaller amount of corporations, mostly GMO. Less varieties of foods will be sold, maybe only 2 or 3 types of potato and tomatoes. There will be less variety and ultimately the worlds food will be in the hands of a small group of unelected people with a large amount of influence and unlimited lobbying power. This is no conspiracy theory it is the corporations that want this to happen.
1

vollandFeb. 06, 2013 - 09:16AM JST

@2020hindsightsFeb. 05, 2013 - 08:47AM JST

"No. The whole point of the TPP is to remove tariffs to benefit everyone. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Most Japanese don't seem to realize that removing the rice tariff will benefit everyone."

I am afraid you need to get back to ecoonmics 101. We are talking about the real world here, not what a book tells you.

No one at these talks is interested in free trade, everyone is interested in getting as much of an advantage over everybody else as possible.
-1

vollandFeb. 06, 2013 - 09:16AM JST

@2020hindsightsFeb. 05, 2013 - 08:47AM JST

"No. The whole point of the TPP is to remove tariffs to benefit everyone. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Most Japanese don't seem to realize that removing the rice tariff will benefit everyone."

I am afraid you need to get back to ecoonmics 101. We are talking about the real world here, not what a book tells you.

No one at these talks is interested in free trade, everyone is interested in getting as much of an advantage over everybody else as possible.
1

FrungyFeb. 06, 2013 - 11:33AM JST

As long as all signatories adopt the same completely open stance, then sure... but the U.S. isn't going to agree to that, their economy would crash in months if they did.
4
NessieFeb. 06, 2013 - 12:03PM JST
Yes, these products should be exempted. Also, the U.S. should promise to do the following:
- tie Japan's shoes
- wipe its nose
- tuck it in at bedtime.
2

herefornowFeb. 06, 2013 - 12:38PM JST

I am afraid you need to get back to ecoonmics 101.

volland -- aside from the obvious typo, you might want to brush up on your "ecoonmics 101". There are numerous free trade agreements in place around the world, including NAFTA. Politics can be over-come with sound economic reasoning and rational. The problem is the TPP is too much of an emotional issue in Japan, where the 3% or so of the population dependent on agriculture can hold the LDP hostage. Actually hold the whole country hostage, since you pay about 8 times the world rate for that delicious rice they grow.
0

GWFeb. 06, 2013 - 02:20PM JST

Absolutely NOT!

Japan has had its way far too long, it needs to play fair or except higher duty/import consumption tax rates, take it or leave it!
1

The passageFeb. 06, 2013 - 03:15PM JST

US protects its airline industry from foreigners, so why not?

Wow - clearly a touchy subject! I think Japan has the right to ask for concessions if there are still areas in the other countries that are protected (not just US). Even if it means a timetabled approach to opening up completely, but when a country refuses to open up a specific segment to foreign competitors, then other countries should be able to choose areas they want to protect too. Bear in mind that this is an AGREEMENT between nations, so the other countries would have to be willing partners to those concessions. Just to expand on the point above, US domestic market is not open to foreign firms and I believe the consumer is suffering as a result. As it happens, I also believe that Japan's protection of the Rice industry is also not in the interest o the consumer. Step by step, eh?
0

ScroteFeb. 06, 2013 - 05:50PM JST

I'm 100% sure the US won't drop all import tariffs and restrictions for TPP member countries. They severely limit sugar imports and recently set a (high) minimum price on Mexican orange imports.

Based on this, Japan could probably get an exemption for rice imports. But if every country starts arguing for exemptions the TPP will hardly differ from current trade discussions. Maybe it's just another way for the US to try to force it's restrictive IP rules on everyone else?
2

wipeoutFeb. 06, 2013 - 07:54PM JST

Japanese farmers have suck at the teat of the tax payer for too long; couple with their staggeringly undemocratic inflated voting power they represent one of the largest impediments to Japan's future.

The US has been trying to kick Japan's door in for decades, but their own rice is heavily subsidized.

For example, California received $2.5 billion between 1995 and 2011, and Arkansas received 5.7 billion over the same period, and almost $2 billion went to Louisiana. What they do with that subsidized product, to a very great extent is export it. Some countries are obstinate and say no - like Korea and Japan - others are more easily coerced, like Haiti. Obviously while Haiti and (in future) Cuba are great for business, a country like this with nearly 130 million people is a far bigger attraction for an American rice grower.

The benefits to Japan are less obvious - cheaper rice, sure, but at the expense of the destruction of Japan's own farming sector. A lot of Japanese have pretty direct links to all those "inefficient" farms, as in, members of their own family are working the fields. There will be a social and a cultural cost to killing off the farms here, and no one in the US will give a damn what that is going to be. People here don't think purely with their wallets.

US subsidies:

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=06000

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=22000

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=05000

Top recipients:

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=totalfarm&regionname=theUnitedStates
0

HimajinFeb. 07, 2013 - 03:26AM JST

Thanks, wipeout. I'm sure a lot of Americans don't realize how heavily farms are subsidized.
-1

JeffLeeFeb. 07, 2013 - 08:37AM JST

Almost everyone subsidizes agriculture. The difference is that the Americans and others are willing to drop their subsidies for the sake of free trade, while Japan and Korea are not.
0

HimajinFeb. 08, 2013 - 08:50AM JST

Are they really going to stop subsidizing dairy farms?