| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:30 pm Post subject: The Democratic Party's Protectionism |
 |
|
Obama is indeed setting a new tone with the rest of the world, but it actually happens to be worse than the Bush administration's. So much for 'start[ing] by listening' instead of 'start[ing] by dictating.'
Trade Policy Holes
| Quote: |
President Obama told ABC News that it would be a mistake for the United States to break trade commitments, signal protectionism, or start trade wars. He didn't exactly say the clause should be removed and a Senate effort to do so failed.
By the time President Obama finally spoke out on Tuesday, the "Buy American" movement had gathered momentum. There is a lobbying effort to push the approach, and entrenched Congressional support. Inside U.S. Trade quoted House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) on Wednesday as saying of Buy American, "If it's not in, I'm against this package. Can I be any clearer than that? If it's not in, I'm not supporting it and I'm bringing a lot of votes with me."
Meanwhile, retaliation threats and objections have been lodged by Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Coupled with the China spat, this is an impressive collection of trade frictions for an Administration that is not three weeks old.
The propensity of the new administration to dig itself holes seems to emanate from an ambivalence about the effects and desirability of trade. Without a clearer and more decisive approach, their problems seem likely to deepen. |
Wasn't this stimulus to be co-ordinated with other countries'? Weren't we supposed to refrain from protectionism?
So far I give Obama a C- overall on foreign policy. He's much worse than I'd thought he'd be out of the gate. Overall, his performance so far is quite disappointing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| These are just the opening shots in a long-needed discussion about fair trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| These are just the opening shots in a trade war |
Fixed it for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| These are just the opening shots in a trade war |
Fixed it for you. |
No, Ya-Ta is right. Canada aside (because it follows her commitments to NAFTA strictly) the United States must be more aggressive in seeking fair trade from her major partners. I'm thinking most specifically the ROK, Japan and China. I don't really know anything about the EU as it relates to this. The United States can no longer be a dumping ground for the suppressed-waged exporting nations of Asia. Time for some reciprocity.
Really.. What the hell is China, Japan or Korea going to do? Stop importing American food? Ha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| These are just the opening shots in a trade war |
Fixed it for you. |
No, Ya-Ta is right. Canada aside (because it follows her commitments to NAFTA strictly) the United States must be more aggressive in seeking fair trade from her major partners. I'm thinking most specifically the ROK, Japan and China. I don't really know anything about the EU as it relates to this. The United States can no longer be a dumping ground for the suppressed-waged exporting nations of Asia. Time for some reciprocity.
Really.. What the hell is China, Japan or Korea going to do? Stop importing American food? Ha. |
That's not what the Dems are doing, however. They are trying to violate existing trade agreements to put in a chauvenistic 'Buy American' clause into the stimulus.
Besides, a global downturn is a stupid time to insist for 'trade reciprocity' to use your euphemism for protectionism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That's not what the Dems are doing, however. They are trying to violate existing trade agreements to put in a chauvenistic 'Buy American' clause into the stimulus. |
"Buy American" is entirely reasonable, given the circumstances. This was watered down in the bill anyways (last I saw).
| Quote: |
| Besides, a global downturn is a stupid time to insist for 'trade reciprocity' to use your euphemism for protectionism. |
I disagree. Time to move onwards and upwards from the old paradigm. America, like Canada, needs to produce/export more and import less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
700,000 Korean cars sold in the US last year; 5,000 American cars sold in Korea. If that discrepancy were balanced in another area, like rice or beef, then it could be acceptable, but we know about that. What about intellectual property? Pirated copies are on almost every street corner; legitimate copies are hard to come by.
I'm not for closing the borders at all--just some equitable rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
700,000 Korean cars sold in the US last year; 5,000 American cars sold in Korea. If that discrepancy were balanced in another area, like rice or beef, then it could be acceptable, but we know about that. What about intellectual property? Pirated copies are on almost every street corner; legitimate copies are hard to come by.
I'm not for closing the borders at all--just some equitable rules. |
Exactly. Exactly... America (and Canada) needs to treat others as it is being treated. The industrial base must be rebuilt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Except Korean cars are actually better.
And american beef is now selling well in korea. As for rice, well the US shouldn't be exporting that either. Growing it in CA=massive waste of water.
But yeah, right about intellectual property. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Except Korean cars are actually better.
|
Which is interesting. Daewoo is owned by GM.
If the American car makers had a chance in hell in cracking the Asian markets (esp Japan and Korea) they would have to raise the overall quality of their product to match the competitors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
If the American car makers had a chance in hell in cracking the Asian markets (esp Japan and Korea) they would have to raise the overall quality of their product to match the competitors. |
The Big 3 are doing quite well in China, even despite the economic downturn. One of the few bright spots, at least for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
If the American car makers had a chance in hell in cracking the Asian markets (esp Japan and Korea) they would have to raise the overall quality of their product to match the competitors. |
The Big 3 are doing quite well in China, even despite the economic downturn. One of the few bright spots, at least for now. |
This is true, and the profits from GM's sales in China are largely keeping the company going now. And this shows that Asians will buy American designed cars provided the product is altered to regional tastes. The Ford Focus is the #10 best selling car in China, if memory serves. The Focus also sells very well in Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
China is projected to be the largest auto market in the future (if it isn't already now), and Detroit has practically gambled its future on being a major player in that country.
And although its market is small potatoes in comparison, Korea should continue to be pressured to open up to more balanced trade, as well. Enough's enough. I liked what Hillary had to say about this situation and what she referred to Korea's "historical amnesia". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| I liked what Hillary had to say about this situation and what she referred to Korea's "historical amnesia". |
That was the closest thing to economic porn I'd ever seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| These are just the opening shots in a trade war |
Fixed it for you. |
No, Ya-Ta is right. Canada aside (because it follows her commitments to NAFTA strictly) the United States must be more aggressive in seeking fair trade from her major partners. I'm thinking most specifically the ROK, Japan and China. I don't really know anything about the EU as it relates to this. The United States can no longer be a dumping ground for the suppressed-waged exporting nations of Asia. Time for some reciprocity.
Really.. What the hell is China, Japan or Korea going to do? Stop importing American food? Ha. |
That's not what the Dems are doing, however. They are trying to violate existing trade agreements to put in a chauvenistic 'Buy American' clause into the stimulus.
Besides, a global downturn is a stupid time to insist for 'trade reciprocity' to use your euphemism for protectionism. |
Smoot-Hawley Tariff - again.
Protectionism always makes things worse.
Free trade will always benefit a country, no matter what its trading partners do. Having trade barriers hurts the country that imposes the barriers. Eliminating trade barriers helps the country that eliminates them. This is true, no matter how high the barriers are nor what the response is from the other countries in the world. This is always true.
If the US wants to maximize its economic growth and prosperity, the government should eliminate all barriers to free trade, immediately, unilaterally, without negotiations with other nations or demands on other nations. Just do it. When the other nations figure out that this is the best approach, they will follow suit. But, even if they never do, the US will still be better off by repealing all barriers to trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
