Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Nico Limmat, Nov 10, 2003.
What will the Bushies do?
Bush was considering whether to keep them or not, this probably just pushes the Administrationg towards dropping them.
I don't know about the political implications, but as a matter of principle Bush was wrong with its protectionist policies. I think this is one instance in which former president Clinton was right. The steel duties and other similar forms of protectionism should be eliminated. The United States and the whole world will benefit from free trade.
But the Europeans shouldn't be so smug about this ruling. European countries also likes to play the protectionism game, and they are just as wrong when they do it.
Hard to say what Bush will do. Droping the tariffs will hurt politically. The cold hard fact is that there is too much steel being produced in this country. What is really needed is some consolidations and liquidations of steel companies.
What I find despicable is that the EU is playing politics, literally, with this issue:
EU sources say sanctions would be set on products from politically sensitive states, such as Florida oranges.
Why are they making policy decisions based on internal US politics? They were dumping steel in the US at dirt prices, to undercut US steel makers. I've got mixed feelings on this. I'm pro-free trade but not to the point of being treated for a fool.
Who has more pictures of politicians with farm animals? Steel producers or exporters?
Won't the 2004 election be fun?
A guy who advocates Herbert Hoover's economic ideas (Bush) against a guy who advocates Juan Peron's economic ideas (whoever the Democrats nominate.)
Newsflash: other countries have economic interests too. You can spin it more than a price-is-right wheel, these steel duties are illegal - period. Do you understand? Illegal*
*unless of course you consider the WTO just another irrelevant global organization, which wouldn't surprise me in the least...
Isn't pure, untarnished capitalism beautiful?
[Karl Keller] Communist! [/Karl Keller]
Trade experts point out that the United States used similar tactics after the W.T.O. ruled in 1997 against a European Union quota system favoring the import of bananas from its members' former colonies and its ban on American beef raised with hormones.
"The U.S. made its trade sanctions even more onerous on Europe by pinpointing certain countries and having a constantly changing set of retaliation, spreading the pain more broadly," said Richard Cunningham, a trade lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.
Source NY Times
I guess what goes around, comes around...
Aah, the sweet, sweet sound of American right-wing nutjobs crying like babies when creatures of their own making are chewing their nuts off.
IOW, "I like the free market, except when the damn thang work agin' me..."
Sanction, then invade, the WTO, without the support of the UN...
These steel tariffs have hurt every other US industry. If you're an automaker in the United States and you have to buy overpriced steel from Pittsburgh you're screwed. It's not like you can pass the buck on to the customer in this economy. Detroit is losing on both ends. I'm not crying for them mind you, stating the hard facts.
When you tell a Mfg. base they can't import cheaper steel, but they still must pay their union labor and are forced to give deep discounts to customers (0% financing) becuase of the economy, what do you expect them to do? Move off shore that's what.
Blame Bush for jobs going to Mexico, et al. If I'm GM of course I'm moving shop to Juarez. The cheaper, non-union labor is not the only benefit. Being able to import cheaper raw materials is a plus as well.
Ian "Smoking" CRACKen, what do you think of this issue? Other than the Euro politicization?
Looks like Duyba broke a nail scratching Pittsburgh's back. It really makes you wonder...
If EU steel can be cheaper including the transportation cost, then that tells you how overpriced U.S. steel really is.
Doesn't Ian live in Detroit? I guess these kind of facts just slip by him at breakfast, when he eats his wheaties and smirks while reading editorials in The Weekly Standard.
A little bit different targeting specific COUNTRIES rather than specific STATES, isn't it? The specific targeting of states would be specifically designed to influence the U.S. presidential election. What would targeting specific countries in Europe do?!?!?
Another benefit is that if we provide jobs to people in Mexico, then the poor people from Mexico are less likely to come to the US. Mexico will become a better place, and (if you believe the anti-immigration people) so will the USA.
If something can be made cheaper in Mexico, then we should make it in Mexico. America should concentrate on creating jobs in the areas in which we have a competitive advantage instead of trying to protect and subsidize the industries in which we are less efficient.
Bush campaigned on free trade.
Then he turned around and supported massive steel tariffs and billions in subsidies with the farm bill, showing himself to be a protectionist at heart.
But it should be fun watching the administration squirm over this one.
And they deserve to squirm. As much as I credit the Bush administration for its foreign policy, I admit that they lay an egg on this issue.
White House faces delicate decision on fate of steel tariffs:
U.S. faces steel retaliation:
No, he's just not 100% in favor of free trade.
Precisely. Like all "free trade capitalists" he is only in favour of those bits of free trade and/or capitalism that directly benefit his interests or the interests he represents. Anything else, he is naturally given to opposing.
The inherant flaw in that end of the socio-economic blueprint scale.
My point is that it could be made cheaper in the United States if Bush hadn't enacted the Steel Tariff. By wrongly protecting one industry (that's beyong saving IMO) he's hurting another.
The U.S. is losing its competitive advantage because of its own policies.
While in general I agree with your statement I have to disagree because it's not the responsibility of the U.S. government to "provide jobs to people in Mexico". It's responsible for providing them to people in the U.S. Protectionist policies are not a good way of doing that.
Silly boy. The US government is responsible for providing jobs to people who contribute to Republican election campaigns.
Yeah, Bush's re-election campaign will feature a plan to get more jobs and and provide a better education system. Too bad the jobs will be in Mexico and the new schools in Iraq.
Yes, how dare someone use the power of the dollar / euro / yen to influence politics. You'd almost think that they are capitalists.
Ian, you were one of those people who were overjoyed at stories about how US sales of French wines and US tourism to France were down this summer. That sound you hear now ringing in your ear is French for "suck my fat Gallic dick".