the aim of GATS is to remove barriers. Let's indeed oppose this. What we need are more barriers - lots more barriers!

You really are a twat aren't you?

"Barriers" is globalising Newspeak for "protection", ie. protection for workers and protection for small farmers, businesses etc who the massive corporations are trying to wipe out in the interests of grossly-misnamed "free trade"

You support the destruction of all competition at the hands of monopolistic corporations, do you?

It isn't a level playing field when you've got one leg and your opponents are genetically-enhanced cyborgs, is it?

No don't bother answering, you clearly haven't got a frigging clue.

Perhaps if you had two brain cells to rub together, some ACTUAL "scepticism" and a less childish and simplistic view of the world you would know this.

Sadly that's very unlikely.

You nob.

and you ought to know that all monopolies are inherently unstable.

"Free trade" is at present aimed at reducing farming subsidies that are already too large - eg the EU. These subsidies were put in place to ... oh dear, protect small farmers.

"you ought to know that all monopolies are inherently unstable"

Theoretical, neoliberal nonsense derived from Adam Smith's misplaced optimism in the power of competition to tame monolithic corporations. Read Joe Stiglitz's 'Globalization and its discontents', for a mainstream, capitalist critique of this flawed 'perfect equilibrium' market theory. Of course, the ridiculous intellectual property rules hardly stabalise monopoly power do they?

""Free trade" is at present aimed at reducing farming subsidies"

Nope, 'free trade' is aimed at leveling the playing field for grossly inequal players, does it matter that the pitch is flat when Man U play a pub team at footy? Neoliberal economics is the desparate last gasp of capitalism - a system that must constantly grow or die, a system that seeks to be infinite in a finite world. GATS will screw the poor, putting water, healthcare and education further out of reach of many of the world's population - conveniently making sweatshop jobs the best they can aspire to without revolt.

Sceptic, your shallow parroting of flawed neoliberal economics convinces no one. At least try and form an argument next time - but that would slow down your trolling wouldn't it?

to you, my arguments are flawed.

to me, yours are.

now back them with facts.

name me one country where GDP has decreased or poverty increased as a result of trade liberalisation or reduction of tariff barriers.

evidence: many countries have tried to protect their home industries. like, india, with the car industry. would you buy an ambassador if given a chance?

you object to monopolies. what do trade barrirers do except increase the likelihood of local monopolies?

name me one country that has prospered as a result of trade barriers.

I know a coach in a local football club here in Frace. He told me that Coca-Cola gives lot of equipments. Is it a local club or a coca-cola club aiming to sell their products to children?
The ads for the UEFA européan cup shows to much coca-cola logos. The coca-cola logo is bigger than the UEFA logo. Is it the uefa cup or the coca-cola cup aiming to sell their products?

What about a coca-cola hospital, or a burger King museum? If you support WWF campaign for trees, receive Henkel discount products at a great price....
This cancer is proudly offered by Vivendi waters. Thanks to support our products.
Buy Kraft chips ans receive a free preventive Alzheimer control.

What do you think of this beautiful world? Welcome in a GATS world without barriers to trade.

You prefer a GATS FREE ZONE world? OK: http:/horsagcslogo.chez.tiscali.fr/engpage.html

"name me one country where GDP has decreased or poverty increased as a result of trade liberalisation or reduction of tariff barriers. "

I could name over a dozen - I could also name a host of countries in the developing world whose economies grew significantly in the 1950s-1970s as aresult of taking the OPPOSITE route to the getting-shafted-by-corporations method that you so mindlessly espouse.

Sadly you'll just have to read about it yourself in George Monbiot's excellent Captive State book, 'cos I'm trying to work for a living and can't spare the time to spoon-feed arseholes like yourself.

You don't seem like someone who is won over by reasonable argument anyway.

I know someone already mentioned this book, but I thought I'd talk about one of the points Stiglitz makes. To begin with, when you are nurturing an industry, you need protectionism. That's what many of the developing nations are trying to do. But the IMF and World Bank come along and tell them they have to let all the developed giants come in, which rips them to pieces in a variety of ways. Sure trade liberalisation could be a good thing, when done right. And as far as I can see, it doesn't look like that's happened yet (although China seem to be doing well).