Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Troll_Bait]

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200805/200805210025.html

[Ya-ta Boy]

I think you can forget any public clarification, let alone an apology, because the issue isn't really about mad cows any more than the uproar about opening the market to American rice in the mid 90's was about how American rice lacked whatever it is about Korean rice that makes Korean rice healthy for Koreans.

I have to wonder what other deliberate misinformation PD Diary has aired.

[bassexpander]

This cow thing IS making national headlines in the USA.

Expect a tax on Hyundai, Samsung, LG, and similar companies in some way, shape, or form.

It's about damn time.

[Return Jones]

[bassexpander]

[Whistleblower]

I hope for god that the US and Europe will start to tax for imported Korean goods. Just look at the automobile industry. Any foreign (non Korean) car is a luxury and is probably taxed with import duty by 50%. Wonder if Korea would like a taste of their own kimchi medicine.

[Grab the Chickens Levi]

[Scotticus]

[komerican]

There have been so many beef recalls in the US. The truth is the Bush Administration has really dropped the ball when it comes to regulating the meat packing industry.

Some folks here sound like ultra-nationalist sales representatives of the meat-packing companies. The customer is still king and if the customer wants inspections then companies should comply or lose the market. I just don't like the way the US is handling this. They're way too heavy handed. This is a safety issue more than it is a trade issue.

Here's a comment on a blog talking about how the Bush administration has just failed to do its job, opting for "self-regulation"...yeah riight! There are many news articles on this as well.
http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/hot-new-bush-plan-for-food-safety.html


"Try for a moment to forget about the numerous food safety problems including the recently announced recall of 22 million pounds of beef and instead focus on the GOP plan for just about everything: let industry self regulate. OK, so we already know that is a big reason why we are even in this current mess because industry has failed time after time to properly self regulate, probably afraid of the negative business impact of a new announcement. So here we are, years down the path of self-regulation and what's the new plan being proposed by the special new commission created by Bush? Uh huh, more of the same.

Worse still, the Washington Post delivers cover for this failed policy and manages to not even mention the 22 million pounds of beef that were just recalled...
Yesterday, Mike Leavitt, secretary of health and human services and chairman of a panel established by President Bush to study the safety of imported food, reflected that point of view when he said: "We simply cannot inspect our way to safety."
This quote pretty much says everything we need to know about how the Bush administration plans to make food safer. There is no interest whatsoever in protecting consumers. The only interest is in protecting the businesses and their failed system.

[Unposter]

I agree that the Bush administration has not done enough to protect the American people from food contamination. Safety regulations have become seriously laxed under the Bush administration in general - not just for meat.

But, I disagree about the U.S. being "heavy handed." First of all, this is not a complete across the board (all goods) free trade agreement but a laundry list of give and take items. In the negotiation, Korea came with a few items they wanted and the U.S. came to the table with a few items they wanted. I am willing to bet number one on that list was the opening of the beef market. I believe South Korea was either the first or second biggest importer of American beef before the ban. This is one of the few areas that Americans benefit. Especially, since Koreans prefer cuts of beef that most Americans don't, meaning that if Korea doesn't buy this part of the cow, it might lay waiste.

Sadly, another issue witht the free trade agreement has not been mentioned. Under the agreement, Korea has agreed to stop making knock-offs of American pharmacudicals (sp?), which will drastically hike the price of medicines and medical care for all of us who reside and use Korean medical services.

I am willing to bet this will effect more Koreans than American beef.

[Troll_Bait]

[nicholas_chiasson]

I for one, considering how much food is eaten, find it suprising the whole world hasn't died of food borne illness yet. Do you know why? Cause even with terrible food hygine, water borne illness is more common, more serious, and a far greater problem to the world.

[GoldMember]

From the US chamber of commerce in Korea:

AGRICULTURE
What Is the Issue?
Korea imported $10.6 billion in agricultural products in 2004, about 70% of its
agricultural needs. Korea is the sixth-largest market for U.S. agricultural
goods; in 2004, U.S. exporters shipped $2.5 billion in agricultural products to
Korea, supplying about one-fourth of Korea's agricultural imports. Major U.S.
agricultural exports to Korea include corn, soybeans, processed foods, cotton,
citrus, and nuts --- [b]each of which are subject to tariffs as high as 500%.[/b]
Eliminating these tariffs and removing other market access barriers to U.S.
agricultural goods in Korea would create important new opportunities for U.S.
farmers, ranchers, and processors to compete in the Korean market.
The U.S.-Korea Business Council and AMCHAM Korea believe that a U.S.-
Korea FTA should cover trade in all agricultural commodities comprehensively,
with no exceptions. Significantly, studies indicate that the potential benefits
of a U.S.-Korea FTA would be reduced by half if agriculture is not included in
the agreement.2 An FTA should reflect and build upon multilateral commitments
made under WTO agriculture negotiations in order to provide
enhanced opportunities for both U.S. and Korean companies, farmers, and
ranchers. It should also follow important precedents set in other recent FTAs
negotiated by the United States that ensure real market access for U.S. agricultural
products and provide improved mechanisms to address sanitary and
phytosanitary issues.
Issues to Be Addressed in the U.S.-Korea FTA
Comprehensive Agreement: A U.S.-Korea FTA should cover trade in all agricultural
commodities comprehensively, with no exclusions.
Tariffs/Tariff Rate Quotas: An FTA should eliminate Korean agricultural tariffs
and tariff rate quotas on U.S. agricultural products as rapidly as possible.
U.S. Beef Imports: Korea must eliminate its ban on U.S. bone-in-beef
imports and fully reopen its beef market in-line with internationally accepted,
science-based principles as soon as possible.
Market Access Barriers: An FTA should include commitments by the Korean
government to transparency and predictability in establishing and implementing
food regulations, food safety measures, biotechnology policies, and
inspection and custom clearing procedures and labeling requirements, which
are onerous at present. All of these have presented problems for U.S. agricultural
exporters. Korean product and safety standards are among the greatest
barriers to U.S. exports of agricultural and food products in the Korean
market, and an FTA should lead to Korean codes in-line with internationally
accepted standards.Sanitary/Phytosanitary Measures: An FTA should ensure that Korea's sanitary
and phytosanitary measures on U.S. agricultural imports are sciencebasedand developed in a transparent manner and are not used as barriers to
trade.
KOREA: LIST OF SELECTIVE
COMMODITIES WITH HIGH
IMPORT DUTIES
2004
Product Applied Tariff
Fresh Potatoes 30%
Cheeses 36%
Apples, Grapes, Pears, Cherries 45%
Fresh Tomatoes 45%
Oranges 50%
Whey 50%
Poultry meat 18% to 27%
Pork, Pork Cuts and
Offals 18% to 30%
Confectionary 8% to 40%
Beef and Offals 8% to 40%
Tree Nuts (Pistachios, etc.) 8% to 45%
Fruit Juices 30% to 54%
Skim Milk
Powder 176% over-quota tariff
Peanuts 231% over-quota tariff
Potato Flakes and
Flour 304% over-quota tariff
Feed corn 328% over-quota tariff
Popcorn 630% over-quota tariff
Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
February 2006
U.S. AGRICULTURAL
EXPORTS TO KOREA BY
SECTOR, 2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Don't you just love the bit about sanitary measures being SCIENCE BASED!

[ulsanchris]

I do believe that car import tariffs are around 8 or 8.5%. The extreme price differences can be attributed to cost of transport, economies of scale, and since foreign cars are perceived as a luxury item car sellers jack up the prices a lot.

[GoldMember]

Car Imports, here's the deal:

Long-standing barriers in Korea's automotive sector include tariff and
auto-specific taxes, standards and certification processes and procedures,
continued anti-import bias, inability to offer a full range of financial
services, and currency manipulation. Two bilateral auto agreements were
negotiated in the 1990s that addressed some of the non tariff barriers
that imports face, but they did not lead to an open automotive market in
Korea. The fact that sales of imported vehicles in Korea, from all
sources, accounted for only 2.7% of the Korean automotive market in
2005 --- the lowest import participation level of any major Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member country ---
clearly indicates that this sector needs significant attention in the FTA.

Auto Tax Structure: Korea has an antiquated and discriminatory tax
structure for motor vehicles that is especially burdensome for importers
because: (1) many taxes are based on engine size, which disproportionately
affect imports, and (2) the taxes are applied on top of the 8 percent
duty and in a cascading fashion that magnifies the impact of the tariff. A
U.S.-Korea FTA should include a commitment for a comprehensive
reform of its automotive tax structure that simplifies the tax structure
and eliminates the discriminatory nature of the current system.
Auto Standards/Certification: Korea's continued implementation of
unique standards and certification procedures in the automotive sector
also continues to present a significant barrier to entry to the Korean
AUTOMOBILE IMPORT
PENETRATION RATES
2004
Source: Automotive Trade Policy Council
18
�U.S.-KOREA BUSINESS COUNCIL
AND AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN KOREA
automotive market. A U.S.-Korea FTA should ensure that Korea ceases
these practices and adopts international standards. The U.S. automotive
industry believes that vehicles certified as meeting U.S. auto safety and
emissions standards should be accepted as meeting Korea's standards.
Further, an FTA should establish greater transparency and predictability in
the regulatory development process for Korea's automotive market and
provide industry with adequate opportunities to provide input when the
Korean government is considering new regulations.
Anti-Import Bias: Anti-import bias, largely a residual impact of past practices,
is a particularly important challenge in Korea that has limited market
access for U.S. automakers. Our two organizations urge the U.S. government
to seek additional commitments by the Korean government in an
FTA to help reverse the impact of past practices.
Financial Services: The FTA negotiations should result in an agreement
that allows automakers the ability to offer to Korean consumers the full
range of auto-related financial services permitted in most other OECD
member countries.
Currency Manipulation: An FTA should include assurances by the Korean
government that it will not resort to currency manipulation to gain an
unfair competitive advantage for Korean motor vehicles.
Motorcycle Barriers: Korea has also had several long-standing market
access barriers to sales of U.S. motorcycles that should be addressed in
the context of an FTA. These include a highway ban, noise standards, and
the lack of procedure for title ownership for motorcycle owners that
severely limits financing options for consumers.

The US would have to be really stupid to proceed with an FTA, as based on past experience, Korea can't be trusted to abide by the spirit of the agreement.