>>Definition of free trade:
>>
>>Trade between nations without protective customs tariffs.
>>
>Whats wanted IMO is fair trade not free trade.If a country wants to protect particular areas for social or strategic reasons it should be able to do so. Its always difficult with the US because as a very large and very prosperous country you can easliy be accused of not providing a level playing field.

Nick,

I assume the "you" you refer to above is non-U.S., and not the U.S. itself. If that is the case, then I agree with you.
But it is also more complicated. Here in Canada we currently have a huge dispute (for us, not them) with the U.S. regarding western softwood lumber.

The U.S. doesn't like the 'price' our provincial government charges for "stumpage" (which I infer to mean the wholesale price of a tree). The U.S. does it differently, and they want us to do it like them.
Funny, but when it was large U.S. companies that owned the mills that processed the trees, there was no problem.

My view is that if our government wants to give trees away, that is up to them and that it is no body else's business.

At the same time the U.S. subsidizes farmers in a number of ways, even going so far in some cases as to pay farmers for NOT planting a certain crop. Yet they fully expect these products to be saleable overseas without tariffs.

Then there are the hidden subsidies. Things like tax holidays and tax rebates and a host of others.

No, there is no real "free trade", and I doubt that there ever will be.

>
>Nick Mason