Competition and legal protectionism, I'm confused

Molly David · Feb 6, 2016

I found out this week that Hershey have been able to block the sale of Cadbury products in US by law. This has happened recenrly when I found out I could not buy Cadbury's drinking Chocolate anymore.

How is it possible that an American Company can block another American owned company from selling its products in competition and create a potential chocolate monopoly. Surely this is contrary to the American business ethic of free competition.

This has happened since Kraft Foods bought Cadbury and Hershey lost out. It seems like sour grapes by Hershey to me. Can anyone shed light on this please?

Deckel · Feb 6, 2016

Hershey has the license from Cadbury to produce the Cadbury products in the US so importing Cadbury products made in the UK is a violation of that license agreement. You can still buy Cadbury products produced by Hershey.

waltky · Jun 29, 2016

The American version of Brexit...

North American leaders confront rising protectionism
Thu, Jun 30, 2016 - The leaders of North America confront a rising tide of economic protectionism and nationalism as they held a summit yesterday in the Canadian capital.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for the first time is hosting US President Barack Obama and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto in Ottawa for the North American leaders summit. Obama was also to address the Canadian parliament. The meeting comes one day after US presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump blamed globalization for the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, and he threatened to extricate the US from the two-decade-old North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump also vowed to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement among 12 Pacific Rim nations that has yet to take effect, if he were elected president. And it comes less than a week after Britain voted to exit the EU.

Canadian Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland, chair of the Canada-US Cabinet committee, said the meeting of the three pro-trade leaders comes at an important moment. This is a time when a lot of leaders in the world are talking about building walls, Freeland said in an interview with the Associated Press. What you are going to hear from the leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico is that we are a continent and we believe in building bridges. We really believe in the open society. Those are core Canadian values, open to immigration, open to visitors and open to trade. Trump has also advocated building a wall along the US border with Mexico.

Trudeau pointed to the North American example of economic integration and warned of the risks of protectionism and nationalism. Better collaboration, better partnerships are a path to prosperity, Trudeau said. And thats a compelling example that we want to showcase at a time where, unfortunately, people are prone to turning inwards which will unfortunately be at the cost of economic growth and their own success.

Trudeau and Pena Nieto announced measures to reduce barriers during the Mexican leaders state visit to Canada ahead of the summit. Trudeau said Canada would lift visa requirements for Mexican visitors in December, while Pena Nieto agreed to open Mexican markets to Canadian beef. Efforts to curb global warming will also be a big part of the summit agenda. White House officials said the three leaders would pledge to rely on renewable energy to generate 50 percent of North Americas electrical power by 2025 and Mexico would also join the US and Canada in tackling methane emissions.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2016/06/30/2003649828
Click to expand...

See also:

Trump promises to rip up global trade deals
Thu, Jun 30, 2016 - US Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday vowed to rip up international trade deals and start an unrelenting offensive against Chinese economic practices, framing his contest with Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as a choice between hard-edge nationalism and the policies of a leadership class that worships globalism.

Speaking in western Pennsylvania, Trump sought to turn the page on weeks of campaign turmoil by returning to a core set of economic grievances that have animated his candidacy from the start. He threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and pledged to label China a currency manipulator and impose punitive tariffs on Chinese goods. He attacked Clinton on her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade pact negotiated by US President Barack Obamas administration, and challenged her to pledge that she would void the agreement in its entirety. Saying that Clinton had backed free-trade agreements like NAFTA in the past, Trump said: She will betray you again.

At a rally later in the day in eastern Ohio, Trump attacked the TPP in more provocative terms, saying it was a rape of our country. As a policy manifesto, Trumps Pennsylvania speech was an attack on the economic orthodoxy that has dominated the Republican Party since World War II. It is an article of faith among establishment Republicans and allied groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, which represents the interests of large corporations, that trade is good and more trade is better.

Trump, by contrast, has made blistering attacks on trade his primary economic theme. In his address, he rejected the standard view that countries benefit by importing goods, saying that globalization helped the financial elite, while leaving millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache. It is a critique that has been leveled for years, mainly by a small group of liberal economists who have gained little traction even on the Democratic side.

Trump not only embraced their views, but also cited the work of the liberal Economic Policy Institute by name. Trump, as president, would have significant authority to raise trade barriers, and his speech included his most detailed account to date of his plans to do so, saying that he would pull the US out of NAFTA if Mexico and Canada did not agree to renegotiate it. However, it is far from clear that any president has the power to reverse globalization. Under existing law, Trump could impose only tariffs on specific imports. The most likely effect would be to shift production to other low-cost nations.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2016/06/30/2003649827
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Competition and legal protectionism, I'm confused

Molly David New Member

Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Competition and legal protectionism, I'm confused

Molly David New Member

Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches