Wednesday Quick Hits

It's been a while since I've provided the quick hits, so this will be a table-clearing of sorts.  Enjoy:

• Sarah Palin, Free Trader.  Maybe the fact that the Guv mentioned free trade not once, but twice(!), in her "open letter to GOP freshmen" will calm some of those silly fears out there that the Tea Party's packed with raving protectionists destined to turn Republicans against trade altogether. 

• Google, Free Trader.  Alternate headline: Google fires back at China; It's, Like, So On.

• India, Currency Dove.  Great FT op-ed here about how India has thus far refused to fall into the currency abyss (and, by the way, still runs a bilateral trade surplus with the United States even as the Rupee appreciates against the Dollar).

• GM, Fake "Success."  Everyone wants to talk about how super-awesome the GM bailout turned out.  Except that it didn't.  At all.

• US, Mexico Inaugurate New Freight Crossing. Too bad that Mexican trucks are still banned from using it, and that US exporters are paying needless Mexican tariffs.  But other than that, congrats, guys!

• WTO: Cutting Red Tape Through Trade Facilitation Could Save a Fortune.  Pretty interesting stuff out of Geneva, but you already knew this because you read my blog religiously, right?  Right?

• BMW Hires 1000 Americans to Make Cars in America.  So should we start complaining about a "race to the bottom" and demanding that folks "buy American" now, or should we wait until these good folks have found other employment with "real American" companies? (<-- obvious sarcasm)

That's all for tonight, folks. 

2010 Predictions, Ctd. (Subsidy Edition)

Looks like one of my 2010 predictions is shaping up quite, ahem, nicely.  As you may recall, I predicted that 2010 would see a significant increase in anti-subsidy cases because of, among other things, "the massive proliferation of government subsidies in 2009 and increased tradeflows in 2010."  Well, according to Reuters, conflict appears to be brewing between developed and developing countries over this very issue:

Rich-country members of the World Trade Organisation blocked calls on Friday by developing countries to examine the possible protectionist impact of bailouts and financial stimulus packages.

Developing countries believe bailouts can have an unfair protectionist effect by helping industries in states that can afford them; typically high-income countries and some major emerging countries like China.

At a meeting of the WTO's trade policy review body, the United States and Japan blocked proposals for future WTO analyses of trade measures to cover fiscal measures such as bailouts, according to an official who attended the meeting.

The European Union did not reject the proposal completely but said it required further study so it could be conducted in a realistic and pragmatic manner.

The chairman of the WTO, Hungary's ambassador to the body Istvan Major, said he would continue discussions on this issue, but did not set a timeframe for further moves.

The WTO's regular protectionism reports, introduced in response to the financial crisis, have focused on conventional trade measures such as tariff increases and anti-dumping duties.

The call to include bailouts and stimulus packages was led by Argentina, backed by Ecuador, Cuba, Brazil, India and China.

Adding such measures to the WTO's "protectionism list" is a very good idea - subsidies can distort domestic and foreign markets just as much as tariffs can.  So it's surprising that the United States would block such a move, isn't it?  (Note: not actually surprising at all.)  Regardless, it's clear that a lot of countries are focusing on the potential economic disruption caused by all of the subsidies, bailouts, "stimuli" and rescue packages unleashed in 2009.  And if tradeflows do indeed continue to increase in 2010, domestic countervailing duty cases, or WTO subsidy challenges, might not be far behind.

Don't say I didn't warn you.