4 ms·

> India can develop its solar energy sector by itself. Until the US sues them and the WTO rules against them. http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idI

by davedx 11y ago

> India can develop its solar energy sector by itself. Until the US sues them and the WTO rules against them. http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idINKCN0QV2FD20150827 http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idINKCN0QV2FD2...

TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
India wants 8% domestic production, and the US has a cry. What a bully. How does the WTO enforce that sort of ruling? India has The Bomb.
- harryf 11y ago
  Because 8% of India is huge - that would mean India has a functioning solar energy tech sector - perhaps one that might be able to compete worldwide
  - mcv 11y ago
    8% of India is bigger than many entire countries. If India can export this and compete world wide, that's enormous.
- _nedR 11y ago
  America believes in free trade as long as they are able to crush the competition like a bug even before it gets started off the ground. If you can have local producers that have 8% market share, then they might actually have a sliver of a chance to survive and compete in the market place, and thats unacceptable. Yep, free and fair.
- dexterdog 11y ago
  But I think the US has their launch codes
- nroets 11y ago
  When South Africa (where I live), violated trade rules and put up barriers to US chicken imports, the US retaliated with barriers to the importation of some SA goods into the US. Eventually, SA gave in and removed the barriers. IMHO Free trade of commodities (food, solar cells etc.) is a good thing.
m_mueller 11y ago
can someone explain to me how EU/US can heavy handedly protect their own agriculture and not violate the same rules? How is energy infrastructure not part of the same exemptions (assuming that those exist)?
- pjc50 11y ago
  The EU/US make the rules.
- sgift 11y ago
  Short version: Agriculture is one of the classic areas where countries usually said "no, we want to be independent, all the talk about free markets aside" .. That was the case when GATT[1] was still active (a framework, which built the base of the WTO), then came the Uruquay round[2] which established the WTO and stated that we now really, really have to find a way to include agriculture, which lead to the Doha round that ran since 2001 and more or less broke down in 2007/2008 - mainly over the issue of agricultural protection. Since then, nothing happened[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round
  - m_mueller 11y ago
    IMO it makes quite a bit of sense to exclude a few areas from enforced free trade. Otherwise we could as well argue that countries must allow a free market for acquiring military services. The thing is, it's silly to only do this for agriculture. There's a few areas that are vital for a nation to have some sense of independence, and allowing the protection of energy infrastructure is certainly one of them. Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer a world without the need for nation states and borders - but as long as we do have them IMO some of these international organisations are overstepping, and WTO is near the top of that list.
JackFr 11y ago
So what you're saying is that without a local content requirement India is incapable of making competitive solar cells. I don't believe that's true. I think the local content requirement was simply a gift to politically well connected Indian firms. The Indian people should be thanking the WTO in this case, that rather than serving the interests of the crony capitalists, the interests of the people are being served. Few countries have been damaged as much by protectionism as has India, and fewer have had such great gains by its gradual elimination.

by davedx 11y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago

India wants 8% domestic production, and the US has a cry. What a bully. How does the WTO enforce that sort of ruling? India has The Bomb.

harryf 11y ago
Because 8% of India is huge - that would mean India has a functioning solar energy tech sector - perhaps one that might be able to compete worldwide
- mcv 11y ago
  8% of India is bigger than many entire countries. If India can export this and compete world wide, that's enormous.
_nedR 11y ago
America believes in free trade as long as they are able to crush the competition like a bug even before it gets started off the ground. If you can have local producers that have 8% market share, then they might actually have a sliver of a chance to survive and compete in the market place, and thats unacceptable. Yep, free and fair.
dexterdog 11y ago
But I think the US has their launch codes
nroets 11y ago
When South Africa (where I live), violated trade rules and put up barriers to US chicken imports, the US retaliated with barriers to the importation of some SA goods into the US. Eventually, SA gave in and removed the barriers. IMHO Free trade of commodities (food, solar cells etc.) is a good thing.

m_mueller 11y ago

can someone explain to me how EU/US can heavy handedly protect their own agriculture and not violate the same rules? How is energy infrastructure not part of the same exemptions (assuming that those exist)?

pjc50 11y ago
The EU/US make the rules.
sgift 11y ago
Short version: Agriculture is one of the classic areas where countries usually said "no, we want to be independent, all the talk about free markets aside" .. That was the case when GATT[1] was still active (a framework, which built the base of the WTO), then came the Uruquay round[2] which established the WTO and stated that we now really, really have to find a way to include agriculture, which lead to the Doha round that ran since 2001 and more or less broke down in 2007/2008 - mainly over the issue of agricultural protection. Since then, nothing happened[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round
- m_mueller 11y ago
  IMO it makes quite a bit of sense to exclude a few areas from enforced free trade. Otherwise we could as well argue that countries must allow a free market for acquiring military services. The thing is, it's silly to only do this for agriculture. There's a few areas that are vital for a nation to have some sense of independence, and allowing the protection of energy infrastructure is certainly one of them. Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer a world without the need for nation states and borders - but as long as we do have them IMO some of these international organisations are overstepping, and WTO is near the top of that list.

JackFr 11y ago

So what you're saying is that without a local content requirement India is incapable of making competitive solar cells. I don't believe that's true. I think the local content requirement was simply a gift to politically well connected Indian firms. The Indian people should be thanking the WTO in this case, that rather than serving the interests of the crony capitalists, the interests of the people are being served. Few countries have been damaged as much by protectionism as has India, and fewer have had such great gains by its gradual elimination.