WTO rules against U.S. steel tariff - Page 2

LoneWolf · July 13, 2003, 00:36

Well, Imran, my own inclination is also to free trade. But you have got to look at the facts. We are being screwed. We open our markets, and others don't, or do but subsidize their own industries so heavily that ours have no chance.

Its a good theory, but we are the only believers, and it is killing us.

Imran Siddiqui · July 13, 2003, 00:40

So what if we are being screwed?! Didn't you read my post? When England took off all tariffs, it was the only country that did anything like that. All their rivals had huge tariffs... and they benefited immensely.

Time to practice what we preach.

Kramerman · July 13, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by LoneWolf

We have no allies.

No sense in getting distracted by such emotional foolishness. Sometimes our interests coincide with other countries', other times not.

If we are to have true competition, let's go. I just wish we were allowed to compete in other markets like we allow others to "compete" (dump) here.

THe Euros, for example, subsidize Airbus obscenely, in order to keep unemployment a little less than catastrophic, and steal contracts from Boeing because they pay only a small portion of their true labor costs. But the Euros expect us to open our markets to such "free" competition, and we do, even for military contracts. We are truly stupid.
And then they say we are "unilateral" and "protectionist. HAH! If we really were, every other economy in the world would completely collapse.

those are good points. but wouldnt the WTO have thought of this before making their ruling? Is there something else that affected their judgement? Are they belligerent toward the US?

Kuciwalker · July 13, 2003, 00:42

Imram's right. In this case, "What doesn't kill you just makes you stronger" is completely true.

LoneWolf · July 13, 2003, 00:43

Well. Imran, we do practice what we preach (with a couple of isolated exceptions like the recent steel tariffs), and it is not helping us. We are bleeding out $41 Billion each month.
So tell me when the benefit starts?

Kuciwalker · July 13, 2003, 00:45

If our industries have to compete against ADVANTAGED opponents and survive, they will be suprememly efficient and profitable.

LoneWolf · July 13, 2003, 00:46

Oh, and to Skywalker, its killing us.

Imran Siddiqui · July 13, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

we do practice what we preach (with a couple of isolated exceptions like the recent steel tariffs)

The isolated exceptions show that we do not.

Quote:

it is not helping us. We are bleeding out $41 Billion each month.
So tell me when the benefit starts?

It already has. The US has an incredibly high living standard where its people can afford better made foreign goods. US industries are also getting more and more efficient to compete.

I don't care about the trade deficit. It's making things better for the people who buy things.

Tariffs led to the debacle of American automobile manufacturers in the 1970s.

LoneWolf · July 13, 2003, 01:01

No, the isolated exceptions are isolated exceptions. Overall, our markets are THE most open in the world. That is our problem.

The auto industry is an excellent example. Most cars sold here are now foreign. Is that good? The "debacle" you speak of was caused by an artificial "oil crisis" and the resultant rush to import cars which were perceived to be more efficient. It was not accompanied by an opening of non-US markets, and our auto industry is now dying. Chrysler is gone, Ford is going and GM is on life support. And you think this is an example of the success of free trade for US?

LoneWolf · July 13, 2003, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

those are good points. but wouldnt the WTO have thought of this before making their ruling? Is there something else that affected their judgement? Are they belligerent toward the US?

Not more belligerent than other such organizations. All such entities form the purpose to "reign us in", because that is why other nations support them. The French, for example, don't really give a damn about "international institutions". They just know that it is the only weapon they have. Ultimately, these nations realize (correctly) that the best way for them to oppose us is to ensnare us in "international institutions"."

Imran Siddiqui · July 13, 2003, 01:17

Quote:

Overall, our markets are THE most open in the world. That is our problem.

It's our strength.

Quote:

The auto industry is an excellent example. Most cars sold here are now foreign. Is that good? The "debacle" you speak of was caused by an artificial "oil crisis" and the resultant rush to import cars which were perceived to be more efficient. It was not accompanied by an opening of non-US markets, and our auto industry is now dying. Chrysler is gone, Ford is going and GM is on life support. And you think this is an example of the success of free trade for US?

Yes it is good that more foreign cars will be sold. American car makers can get their asses in gear. To say Chrysler is dying is ludicrious! It is actually thriving! The latest reports say that Chrysler is propping up the sagging Mercedes line of Daimler-Chrysler. Ford is doing fine, and GM is doing well.

The reason the 70s were such a disaster was because of the oil shocks. Gas was so much that people didn't CARE they were paying for more expensive Toyota's and Honda's so long as they didn't have to pay as much for gas (better MPGs). American cars died as Americans said screw this, we'll pay more for Japanese. Because of decades of tariffs, American cars were so utter crap that people didn't want them anymore.

Kidicious · July 13, 2003, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes it is good that more foreign cars will be sold. American car makers can get their asses in gear. To say Chrysler is dying is ludicrious! It is actually thriving! The latest reports say that Chrysler is propping up the sagging Mercedes line of Daimler-Chrysler. Ford is doing fine, and GM is doing well.

That's not what the experts are saying. The US industry did well, because of new products (Minivans adn SUV), but if they can't keep coming up with new products they are doomed.

Kidicious · July 13, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what if we are being screwed?! Didn't you read my post? When England took off all tariffs, it was the only country that did anything like that. All their rivals had huge tariffs... and they benefited immensely.

Time to practice what we preach.

England wasn't free trade. It had colonies where it used mercantalist policies.

Imran Siddiqui · July 13, 2003, 01:27

How many colonies did it have in 1632? What, Scotland?

Quote:

The US industry did well, because of new products

You mean they got their asses in gear? And have to continue to keep their asses in gear? *gasp* no!

Kuciwalker · July 13, 2003, 01:29

[nit-picking]Well, actually some British colonies in America existed by then[/nit-picking]

Imran Siddiqui · July 13, 2003, 01:30

Yeah, Jamestown.. for like 15 years.

Remember, the New England colonies weren't really under direct British rule at that time.

Kuciwalker · July 13, 2003, 01:31

/me points out the "[nit-picking]"

LoneWolf · July 13, 2003, 02:28

Imran, you seem to be young and impressionable. Look, Chrysler is GONE. It is owned by the Germans. Ford's stock is a tenth of what it was just ten years ago.
You are not listening. Free trade works only if everyone does it.
Don't give me bull about 17th century Britian. That was another world. Colonies, trade wars, privateers, etc. Free trade means we buy, we don't sell. Again, this is your idea of beneficial? I'd hate to see what you think is bad.

DanS · July 13, 2003, 02:47

LoneWolf: $41 billion doesn't leave the US every month--there are no fewer dollars in the American economy because of it. This is because the trade deficit has to be made up by overseas investment in the United States.

If the US isn't covering its trade deficit with investment in the US, then value of the dollar declines until the US does cover its trade deficit. Eventually, a falling dollar will make American goods cheaper at home and overseas, which will result in a lower trade deficit.

As for cars, our companies still have a lot to learn from the likes of Toyota. Of course, most car companies do. Sometimes especially Japanese car companies.

Free trade means we buy, we don't sell.

This situation is unsustainable for anything but a short period. Japan now buys a lot of goods from us, for instance.

Berzerker · July 13, 2003, 02:51

We have all sorts of trade barriers, from tariffs to corporate subsidies just as much of the industrialised world. I do find it humorous how people lament the state of Africa while supporting protectionist policies here.

GePap · July 13, 2003, 03:05

Hey Imran, the corn laws were repealled in 1832, not 1632. Big difference. After all, King Charles the first was not in a big, "call on parliment" mood.

Kidicious · July 13, 2003, 03:12

Right. Imran had me going in the other thread so I didn't catch that until now.

Urban Ranger · July 13, 2003, 03:38

FWIW, a lot of foreign cars sold in the US are made in the US.

notyoueither · July 13, 2003, 04:03

You want a ***** fest? I'll give you a ***** fest.

The US PACs got the powers that be in Washington to agree that Canada subsidises lumber by not charging sky high stumpage for logging on Crown lands. Meanwhile, they ignored that Canadian law requires the logging companies to pay for reforestation on Crown lands. Net result? The pointy heads in Washington levy a tarrif on Canadian lumber so that a few US lumber owners can get a higher price for their timber. Meanwhile, every Ameican pays more for any house built because the lumber costs more. What, you thought the guys who paid the PACs would keep the price where they had to to compete with the massive pile of timber that is British Columbia after they got a 20 or 40% tarrif? (it has varied with time) More meanwhile, the labour force in British Columbia has been thrown into chaos and there are people losing homes.

Now, get this. Canadian farmers are the odd lot out. Europe subsidises farming. The US subisdises farming. The both of them do it massively. Canada does not. The farmers here live or die based on how well they can compete. Sound familiar? Well, the US has recently placed a tarrif on a certain variety of Canadian wheat. Yes, that right, folks. The jackasses that pay farmers to throw away productivity seem to think that a strain of Canadian wheat is a threat to American agriculture with our predatory practice of not subsidising farmers!

I really think that some things need to change south of the 49th. People who would stand by you are unemployed and embittered by the idiotic policies of your government spurred on by PACs. The *****ing up here is growing. How could it not when fracking wheat gets tarrifed? Remember, we have a finger on the energy switch. There is an alramingly large amount of talk based on using that switch to get the attention of our southern neighbours that what Washington has been doing is not cricket.

Now, where is that EU application?

notyoueither · July 13, 2003, 04:11

Oh, btw. The conclusion up here is that the one, lone, mad cow was imported from the US (most likely) or the UK (less likely). The border remains closed to beef, and yet more people are getting pissed off.

How many of them critters you got running around down there? Now, don't worry. So long as your burger contains no brain or spinal tissue, you are at very low risk.

What exactly does MickyD's use for their burgers?

C0ckney · July 13, 2003, 04:58

yeah i was gonna say about the corn laws, i think it was later than 1832, it was after the irish famine IIRC.

Kramerman · July 13, 2003, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by LoneWolf

Not more belligerent than other such organizations. All such entities form the purpose to "reign us in", because that is why other nations support them. The French, for example, don't really give a damn about "international institutions". They just know that it is the only weapon they have. Ultimately, these nations realize (correctly) that the best way for them to oppose us is to ensnare us in "international institutions"."

i agree with this much. the UN and otehr such entities are just political weapons nations use to be passive aggressive against one another

blackice · July 13, 2003, 06:45

notyoueither

You must add in all the Nafta lawsuits, UPS for instance...

On the other hand trade to the states is up to 51% exported:

Quote:

Since NAFTA's implementation, Canada's exports to the U.S. have increased by 51%; and among all NAFTA partners, trade has risen by 65%.

HershOstropoler · July 13, 2003, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by LoneWolf

THe Euros, for example, subsidize Airbus obscenely, in order to keep unemployment a little less than catastrophic, and steal contracts from Boeing because they pay only a small portion of their true labor costs.

Did you overdose on Bush weed?

The US dones out loads of pork projects to Boeing. It is heavily subsidized, too. Btw, if we were breaking the rules without you having dirt on the stick, why is it that you never took the case to the WTO?

"HAH! If we really were, every other economy in the world would completely collapse."

Total EU exports to the US are what now, 2-3 % of GDP. Not enough to collapse us.

"We are bleeding out $41 Billion each month."

That's a result of your bubble economy and your own fault. And btw, when that corrects, you'll suffer more than us.

"Overall, our markets are THE most open in the world."

You are roughly as protectionist as the EU. Stop believing your own propaganda.

"All such entities form the purpose to "reign us in", because that is why other nations support them."

Well the WTO came about because Washington found out that the usual trade games don't work against the EU because we can hurt you just as much as the other way round. You are still playing this with eg Canada, as NYE has pointed out. Although the US usually follows WTO rulings, but only after a lot of delays.

Q Classic · July 13, 2003, 09:41

gatekeeper:

Quote:

How many developed nations don't have domestic steel industries? Any who are dependent on foreign sources for their steel? Japan, perhaps?

both our allies in east asia have their own native steel industries.
korea has posco, which apparently is the largest and most efficient steel producer right now. it was set up by korea at a time when every bank in the world said it wouldn't work out. some other steelmakers include KOSTEEL and dongbu steel.
japan has nippon steel, nkk, and kawasaki steel, to name a few.