[derbs]

You all heard about Bush and his 30% levy on steel imports?

From the 'inventors' of big business globalisation this is total hypocrisy!

eg. Everyone's happy when American big business goes into the third world and rapes them up the ass. But as soon as American jobs are threatened, bang there goes another import restriction!

What a joke. Try playing fair! US has just lost a lot of credibility. what do you reckon? Is this even a big story in the US?

[seanyepez]

Nope. We don't care, and we won't care.

Taiwan stole all of our computer manufacturing. Let's "rape them up the ass" in the steel industry!

[Lerkfish]

International trade is incredibly complex. It's like negotiating a surrender. There are a lot more factors than meet the eye, most political which businesses have to put up with.
Normally, one would expect that businesses would be dealing with just governments to attempt to trade internationally, but the inextricability of the relationship between business and government in capitalistic countries makes that all but impossible.
some companies are even government run, so there's no distinction, really.

so international trade is a diplomacy balancing act. And like all diplomatic ventures, the country with the most marbles usually gets to frame the agreements.

[derbs]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>International trade is incredibly complex. It's like negotiating a surrender. There are a lot more factors than meet the eye, most political which businesses have to put up with.
Normally, one would expect that businesses would be dealing with just governments to attempt to trade internationally, but the inextricability of the relationship between business and government in capitalistic countries makes that all but impossible.
some companies are even government run, so there's no distinction, really.

so international trade is a diplomacy balancing act. And like all diplomatic ventures, the country with the most marbles usually gets to frame the agreements.</STRONG>

and....? not doubting that

However, i think the point in this case is dubya breaking WTO regulation, dumping steel on european markets thus devastating the price and worsening an already bad situation there. There will also be no benefit for inefficient and unproductive US steel manufacturers, they've been given another couple of years before they have to sort their house out, at the expense of the rest of the world!

And why has he done this? Congressional election year? A second term in office?

I know US corporations have zero morality and responsibility, but i never realised the government was just as bad

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>so international trade is a diplomacy balancing act. And like all diplomatic ventures, the country with the most marbles usually gets to frame the agreements.</STRONG>

Of course, general concensus among the rest of the world, is that recent US trade policy indicates George Bush as having lost a lot of his marbles, if indeed he ever had them all.

He's risking a full-out trade war in ways. Not that he'd care much, having already declared conventional war on a rather odd selection of bits of the world...

-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

Of course, general concensus among the rest of the world, is that recent US trade policy indicates George Bush as having lost a lot of his marbles, if indeed he ever had them all.

He's risking a full-out trade war in ways. Not that he'd care much, having already declared conventional war on a rather odd selection of bits of the world...

-s*</STRONG>

LOL! I just wanted to clarify that I was explaining the reality of the situation, not condoning it. In fact, the amount to which I am galled by Bush is too large to measure.
But things like this no longer surprise me to any degree. I have already accepted that he (and his controllers) will do all they can to achieve their goals, hardly any of which I personally agree with.

But, until someone replaces him, the US has most of the marbles (meaning power) in this situation. What a country places as tariffs in their own country against foreign goods is not up for discussion by other countries (unfortunately) especially if the present administration is extremely isolationist.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by derbs:
<STRONG>I know US corporations have zero morality and responsibility, but i never realised the government was just as bad </STRONG>

I don't object to this characterization. I only object to the implication that corporations and governments elsewhere are any different.

[daimoni]

.

[Timo]

Yes, this is getting press over here, but perhaps not the press it should.

What's interesting to me about the new tariff is not so much its justifications: I'm sure there's an argument from the Republicans that domestic steel production must be protected for national security reasons, or something like that. Or perhaps some pundit thinks this is a political move to shore up votes for 2004...who knows.

Rather, I'm interested that this protectionism is an example of non-free-trade from the camp that is always pushing free trade and its agenda. Another name for that agenda is "neo-liberalism."

A whole set of presuppositions is being imposed as self-evident: it is taken for granted that maximum growth, and therefore productivity and competitiveness, are the ultimate and sole goal of human actions; or that economic forces cannot be resisted. (Bourdieu, 1998)

This protectionism demonstrates that there are other goals than maximum efficiency, something which is hardly ever stated. It's irony or hypocracy that it is being stated by the Bush Administration, of course.

When I say "not the press it should", I'm thinking of another Bourdieu comment on free traders and their ilk:

Everywhere we hear it said, all day long�and this is what gives the dominant discourse its strength�that there is nothing to put forward in opposition to the neo-liberal view, that is has succeeded in presented itself as self-evident, that there is no alternative. If it is taken for granted in this way, this is a result of a whole labor of symbolic inculcation in which journalists and ordinary citizens participate passively and, above all, a certain number of intellectuals participate actively.

I'd like people to see that this very action by the Bush Administration shows there are alternatives.

[derbs]

that Economist article was quite interesting

The steel makers and their workers are a powerful domestic lobby, partly because they are largely concentrated in a few rustbelt states. Mr Bush unexpectedly won West Virginia in the 2000 presidential election, largely because of President Bill Clinton�s failure to do anything to help the steel industry. Mr Bush did not win Pennsylvania, where some of America�s biggest integrated steel producers are based. But he hopes that decisive action to help the steel industry now might help the chances of Republican candidates in Pennsylvania and other north-eastern states in the mid-term congressional elections in November.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...ory_id=1020649

[zigzag]

One cannot expect politicians to act with consistency, especially when there are votes and $$$ contributions at stake.

There was a flap a few years ago over bananas involving a big Clinton contributor. I don't remember the details - I think the Europeans decided to stop accepting banana imports from the American-owned company. So Clinton imposed import restrictions on a variety of European products, which ironically drove a number of small American businesses out of business, since they depended on those imported products.

These import/export flaps happen all the time - we often never hear about them. Money talks, BS walks.

[Nimisys]

us steel industry is getting its ass kicked to the point where they can;lt pay pensions, so the presidnet slaps dfown a tarrif to protect and help the domestic steel industry, and your pissed about it? look at the tarrifs japan has in place, or china, or other countries... i guess fair is a one way word, its always fair towards the us, but if used by the us then it is an outrage???

****ing hypocrits

[The Ginger Rat]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
<STRONG>us steel industry is getting its ass kicked to the point where they can;lt pay pensions, so the presidnet slaps dfown a tarrif to protect and help the domestic steel industry, and your pissed about it? look at the tarrifs japan has in place, or china, or other countries... i guess fair is a one way word, its always fair towards the us, but if used by the us then it is an outrage???
</STRONG>

Same goes for farmers' subsidies. Canadian farmers can't compete with US and European farmers on that score.

Fur instance, French mustard- Canadian seeds. Cheaper to import than grow locally. Then we buy it back all fancy finished.

As you say, everyone does it. And everyone screams about the ones that don't go their way.

[KellyHogan]

I got a bright idea. Why don't all countries just use their own steel unless they ain't got any?

[Millennium]

Strange; I thought there were a bunch of anti-globalization types on these forums. Shouldn't they be cheering this decision?

And as for Bush being hypocritical in this decision, I don't see it. I would hardly call him an "inventor" of globalization (and I would note that the greatest support I've seen from a politician for globalization came from Gore, Bush's rival). I don't seem to recall him saying much one way or the other about it.

I don't know whether this decision is a good one or not. I'm still reading up on it myself. But I do know this much: there are no easy answers.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
And as for Bush being hypocritical in this decision, I don't see it. I would hardly call him an "inventor" of globalization (and I would note that the greatest support I've seen from a politician for globalization came from Gore, Bush's rival). </STRONG>

So there is no link to his father economics or Reaganism

[daimoni]

.

[cjrivera]

Bush can't win in this case....

He imposes tariffs... everyone who has anything against Bush says that he's against globalization and foreign trade. He's a "protectionist". It was only done to win votes in the "Rust belt" states. Etc...

He doesn't impose tariffs... Everyone who has anything against Bush claims he isn't doing enough for the American worker. He's not for the "working-class" American (as if anyone who votes for him doesn't actually work). He's more interested in getting cheap steel for "big business" and doesn't care about the "little guy" = steel workers.

I'd like to hear how any of you would handle this situation, without getting criticized?

I don't have a good solution, so that's why I don't criticize.

(...but then again that's why I'm not in politics)

[Face Ache]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0203/07/o.../opinion1.html

The link above is an article written by a former conservative Prime Minister of Australia. I think any Americans here might find it interesting, as it explains at least a small part of why anti-American sentiment exists.

FREE TRADE!!! Remember that? Our steel industry here in Oz has undergone some serious restructuring involving the losses of thousands of jobs (whole towns shutting down) so we can be competitive in a free trade environment (ie: deal with the US, as they have led us on to believe).

Not only has Bush pissed off Australia with this new tariff, but Europe, Asia, well.. the rest of the planet. If you can't compete you can't compete. What's wrong with that? Restructure your industry and deal with it. How can any country apart from the States benefit from free trade when you guys call the shots and don't play fair? Why should we play?

You slapped a tariff on our lamb too and announced it was legal, but it wasn't. It got overruled (after causing chaos here).

The political opposition here in Oz is saying we should use our support for the War on Terrorism� as a bargaining tool. I think that's a bad idea, but it gives you an idea of how much we are ticked off.

Keep going America. See how far you can push it....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Keep going America. See how far you can push it....</STRONG>

please keep in mind that even though it is an easy thing to do, that bush is not "America". Right now he is making the executive branch decisions, that's all. Not all of "America" supports everything he does. The LAST thing I'd like for the rest of the world to think is that his policies are representative of the country as a whole.

However, back to what some have intimated before, the term "FREE TRADE" is an oxymoron. At best, both sides get at least something in the exchange, but normally one side wins or loses to some degree.
Tariffs have been around as long as recorded history, I think, and they're not likely to go away.

Economics usually work like in this example:
Elbonia's biggest export is filtered mud, they make more than they could ever use, but they grow their own velcro in huge farms, basically enough for themselves with a little left over.
Riboflavia's biggest export is velcro, they make way more than they can use, but they produce their own filtered mud, basically enough for themselves with a little left over.

Now, they want to trade with each other. so elbonia pushes for riboflavia to buy more filtered mud. Riboflavia doesn't really need more filtered mud, but they agree if elbonia will buy more velcro.
Seems simple enough, right?
Except here's comes the complications. Riboflavian filtered mud manufacturers see a drop in profits as the cheaper elbonia mud comes on market, basically driving many of them out of business, and in Elbonia, their velcro farmers are facing the same problem as the cheaper riboflavian velcro saturates the market.

There are several choices, none totally attractive.
1. they can impose tariffs, which dont technically violate the original trade agreement but give their local people some economic breathing room (usually temporary and usually inflammatory to the other country)
2. They can stop trading with the other country altogether, but then BOTH domestic industries, velcro and mud, suffer since there is a surplus that isn't going anywhere and their own people don't need it.
3. They can decide that only elbonia should make mud, and only riboflavia should make velcro....this seems well and good, except that that means the velcro farmers in elbonia must be retrained to make mud, and it also means if for ANY reason diplomatic relations break down between the countries, and riboflavia needs mud, they're screwed because they stopped making it, and have forgotten how or have retooled all the mud factories to make them velcro collectives.

And this is just a pure business model, without any politics thrown in. THEN it gets even more complicated.

My point is, there is usually more schtuff going on behind the scenes in smoke-filled rooms that bring these trade agreements about that we'll never be privy to. The saddest thing is people who arent involved in those negotiations will be hurt the most, but the reality is there is almost no good solution to trade.

[MadMacs]

[Face Ache]

Unfortunately Lerkfish, you are lumped with Bush. Slap the guy next to you maybe.

So what happens when Elbonia restructures it's filtered mud industry to be as competitive as it can on a level playing field (as promised) only to be told that Riboflavia is slugging you a massive 30% tariff if you want to deal with them. Of course, Riboflavia makes it's own mud, but really inefficiently, which is why it costs so much in the first place. But rather than get efficient they tax the other guy 30% so they don't lose jobs/votes/donations. They just keep running a bloated industry and hey, screw everyone else. Kenny the Mud Slinger needs a job (screw Barry the Elbonian Mud Slinger who got retrenched last year). Riboflavia is also the only country that makes Velcro, so you can't really hit it back by whacking a tariff on that. At the same time Riboflavia is pushing this dream of globalisation, which only really seems to work for Riboflavia.

Impotent rage is not a good emotion to have amongst "friends".

[nonhuman]

I must say, that was an awesome example. Go Lerkfish!

[Timo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Strange; I thought there were a bunch of anti-globalization types on these forums. Shouldn't they be cheering this decision?

What am I, chopped liver?

[Face Ache]

I can't see this mentioned in the New York Times. It's on the front of the UK Times and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Funny that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Unfortunately Lerkfish, you are lumped with Bush. Slap the guy next to you maybe.

So what happens when Elbonia restructures it's filtered mud industry to be as competitive as it can on a level playing field (as promised) only to be told that Riboflavia is slugging you a massive 30% tariff if you want to deal with them. Of course, Riboflavia makes it's own mud, but really inefficiently, which is why it costs so much in the first place. But rather than get efficient they tax the other guy 30% so they don't lose jobs/votes/donations. They just keep running a bloated industry and hey, screw everyone else. Kenny the Mud Slinger needs a job (screw Barry the Elbonian Mud Slinger who got retrenched last year). Riboflavia is also the only country that makes Velcro, so you can't really hit it back by whacking a tariff on that. At the same time Riboflavia is pushing this dream of globalisation, which only really seems to work for Riboflavia.

Impotent rage is not a good emotion to have amongst "friends".</STRONG>

yep, you're describing what I listed above as "really unattractive trade situation" #1...where tariffs are used to try to adjust the equillibrium. And, as you point out, it does nothing necessarily for improving the efficiencies of the domestic industry who benefits from the tariff, and it carries the risk of ticking off elbonia or whatever. The only way it really works is if the domestic industry uses that temporary breathing room to retool and improve the efficiency of their industry...but that almost never happens, usually because they were at the brink of disaster anyways, so the breathing room is used just to stay alive, instead of trying to become more fit.

the really bad complications of international tradeare myriad, but to name a few:
1. even when trade agreements are made fairly on July 1900, the situations that made them fair will not necessarily remain stable or constant. An agreement that was once mutually beneficial might be drastically lopsided if say, oh...say that riboflavia has a disastrous economic collapse, like argentina, and can no longer afford to buy the goods from elbonia it promised to without further bankrupting their coffers....this is where fluctuating foreign debts can end up being astronomical. Obviously, this wouldn't be elbonia's fault, but they would suffer along with riboflavia.
2. Economical relativity in the advantage of letting elbonia produce filtered mud only works as long as elbonia has cheap labor and ample resources. This is Japan's present situation. It got where it did in the world by having very, very cheap labor at one time. Then, as it grew more prosperous, its workers were more in demanded and therefore demanded more wages, which in turn provided an opportunity for Korea to lowball the labor bid and steal some bizness away from japan, who found itself in the same situation it put the US in a while back. And, China is now undercutting the Koreans.
The relative advantage has to be enough of a difference to justify the added expense of trading.
there's more, but I'm tired of typing.

essentially, foreign trade is monumentally complex, even more so than just a domestic economy because it means two or more incredibly complex economies are becoming infinitely more complex as they interact with each other.

look at how very simple but very devastating events can affect global economies on both a macro and a micro level...
1. Mad cow disease (involves politics, agriculture, trade, disease control)
2. WTC bombing (involves politics, military expenditures, stock markets, consumer confidence, diplomatic relations, airline industry, travel industry, etc.)
3. Energy crisis of the seventies (involves trade, automobile manufacturers, govt. regulations, opec agreements, military expenditures, etc.)

anyways, I'm really overworking the point.
I guess I mean that yes, I think trade policies are difficult decisions, and I wouldn't necessarily decide the same as the current administration, and yes, I really don't like Bush, but on this one I'm cutting him some slack because its a very thorny issue and there is not a clear winning path to take. All of them are paths lined with daggers.

[Face Ache]

Well, we will probably take our bat and ball and go play with Asia.

Now, America, please don't start a war in Asia to force us all to trade with you. Mmmkay?

[AlbertWu]

I'd like to hear how any of you would handle this situation, without getting criticized?

I don't have a good solution, so that's why I don't criticize.

simple. laissez faire. i may draw criticism from the steel industry, but at least i'm consistent in following a proven economic idea.

if the steel industry can't get their act together, then tough bahooneys for them. they need to learn to compete or get out of the marketplace.

[yoyo52]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
<STRONG>

simple. laissez faire. i may draw criticism from the steel industry, but at least i'm consistent in following a proven economic idea.</STRONG>

"Proven" as in the 1920s?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
<STRONG>

simple. laissez faire. i may draw criticism from the steel industry, but at least i'm consistent in following a proven economic idea.

if the steel industry can't get their act together, then tough bahooneys for them. they need to learn to compete or get out of the marketplace.</STRONG>

The argument is that they can't compete because they have huge retirement funding obligations. They can't pay benefits to all those retirees and compete at the same time. There are younger steel companies like Nucor that appear to be able to compete, partly because they've been able to use their cash for capital improvements rather than retirement benefits. I don't know if it's a valid argument, but it's one that they're making. I don't claim to know the answer.

[The Jackalope]

Albert Wu has the right idea.

For real thought on such matters, I suggest reading this article by Ludwig VonMises.

By the way, the stock crash of the 20's had more to do with government tampering and the creation of the Federal Reserve system. If you want to see results of lassiez faire systems, go to the 19th century and look at the economic boom then.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>I can't see this mentioned in the New York Times. It's on the front of the UK Times and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Funny that. </STRONG>

What New York Times were you reading?

Bush Puts Tariffs of As Much As 30% on Steel Imports

Angry Europeans to Challenge Steel Tariffs at WTO

Steel Tariffs Weaken Bush's Global Hand

And that's just from Wednesday's paper. From Thursday's paper:

U.S. Users of Steel Worry That Tariffs Will Be Costly

[Face Ache]

What New York Times were you reading?

The web one. I'm looking at the front page. I don't see anything. I guess I gotta dig. Obviously not big news.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>

The web one. I'm looking at the front page. I don't see anything. I guess I gotta dig. Obviously not big news.</STRONG>

It's not on the front page now because it's a day later. Yesterday it was on the front page.

[derbs]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
<STRONG>

simple. laissez faire. i may draw criticism from the steel industry, but at least i'm consistent in following a proven economic idea.

if the steel industry can't get their act together, then tough bahooneys for them. they need to learn to compete or get out of the marketplace.</STRONG>

I'm with you there, but again this totally points out the US government hypocrisy.

They play laissez-faire when US mega-corps go out and rape the third world. We all know how Starbucks operates their expansion program, by driving all competitors out through their economic power. For ****s sake they even opened a branch in the Forbidden city in China, but that's a different discussion. We all know the conditions in which our trainers were made. Does the government do anything?

However, when their inefficient and badly managed (similiarities with Enron perhaps...?) steel industry is faced with hard times, votes and donations at risk, they slap huge restrictions. Play fair!

[nest18]

I think it should be the US that should be taxed on all their export. Bush don't want to sign Kyoto because it will cost too must to modernise polluting industries, meanwhile EVERYBODY is modernising their equipment which mean more cost a therefore more expensive product compare to US.

I'm just sick on the US raping other country when that benefits them and closing doors when they see that is ain't benefit them anymore.

my .02$

[TNproud2b]

The USA only sucks if you don't live here.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>The USA only sucks if you don't live here.</STRONG>

Possibly, but some that live there suck anywhere they go.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>The USA only sucks if you don't live here.</STRONG>

LOL! well, it sucks if you live here, too, for some people.

[nest18]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>The USA only sucks if you don't live here.</STRONG>

Yep, know lots of American that are shame of their country when the travel !!

[Spheric Harlot]

The hypocrisy lies not so much in the fact that these tariffs may or may not be the best solution domestically (I very much doubt it, since it will drastically increase steel prices for every other US industry, including the already-ailing automobile industry).

It is rather the fact that the US, as the Kings of Free Trade, have given every other country hell about tariffs on US products (like Japan over the last twenty and more years), but resort to them themselves when it happens to be politically opportune in the short term.

We'll see what happens. Russia (which exports much steel to the US) has already banned imports of US chicken, citing non-compliance with health regulations (failure to properly document the goods), and I'm sure more will follow elsewhere.

Chicken, hm. Is there Kentucky Fried in Russia, too?

-s*