EU, Canada to impose sanctions against the US

[Pangloss]

The EU and Canada are planning to slap 15% tariff's on US trade goods beginning May 1st. This is the outcome of a ruling by the WTO which allows the tariff as a punitive measure due to the Byrd Amendment.

 

Two things about this entertain me:

 

1) The WTO continues to ignore enforcement of its own rulings against the EU and Canada. This whole business smacks of anti-Americanism and going-after-the-deep-pockets syndrome. (But in all fairness, for every Airbus subsidy from the French there's a Boeing subsidy by the US, and there's no question the US has got to step up and stop being two-faced about free trade. I blame it on our constitutional requirement of treaty ratification by a bicameral, politicized congress, but it doesn't matter -- we've got to get with the program here if we want to play the Big Game.)

 

2) I wonder if most Euros and Canucks actually view this as a "stick it to Bush and the ugly Americans" issue. Do they realize that Robert Byrd was a Democrat, the law was signed by Clinton, and it's the Republicans that oppose it and have been trying to overturn it? Free trade is a conservative issue in this country.

 

(Actually Clinton was opposed to the Byrd Amendment, and also called for Congress to overturn it. He was a big free-trade guy, something many in the far left will never forgive him for.)

 

Some background reading:

 

http://www.ebearing.com/legislation/2000act.htm

 

Wall Street Journal article, may require subscription:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111226492909294164,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_europe

[atinymonkey]

It's not anti american. It the EU doing just what it set out to do. As it's the second largest economy in the world, I think it's rather anti European to view this as some form of attack on America.

 

It's just business.

[Pangloss]

Yup, you're probably right in looking at it that way. It's just business. I'm sure our congress looks at it the same way when it gives massive tax breaks to Boeing.

 

Maybe the WTO should be abolished and we should use a completely free market approach to world trade. The purpose of having organizations was to avoid "tragedy of the commons" type problems. But of course what ends up happening is that the boundaries are just looked at as hurdles that have to be surmounted or circumvented.

 

Maybe Ayn Rand had it right.

[Sayonara]

I wonder if most Euros and Canucks actually view this as a "stick it to Bush and the ugly Americans" issue. Do they realize that Robert Byrd was a Democrat, the law was signed by Clinton, and it's the Republicans that oppose it and have been trying to overturn it? Free trade is a conservative[/i'] issue in this country.

Conversely, if more of us Euros and Canucks did realise that, would it change anything?

[mezarashi]

I feel for you Pangloss, but that's how the world works, especially when coming to politics and business. Nothing comes for free, and all actions have motives, incentives for profit and personal gain. If it's any consolation, the WTO is also unfair to a hell lot of Asian markets with Western multi-national conglomerates basically decimating domestic competition. On another note, I heard the US is now reconsidering its free-trade and soon imposing a quota limit with China as the flooding Chinese textile imports is destroying the domestic market. So in the end, don't ask too much from these organizations... the same way I never did have faith for the UN. They are simply places where people with power can play themselves a justification to whatever they want to do.

[Aardvark]

Maybe Ayn Rand had it right.

 

Is there anyone in the world who genuinely thinks she was a good writer?

 

Bad plot, bad characterisations, bad pyschology, obvious stereotyping, long winded, pompous and repetitive.

 

 

And anyway, the WTO is supposed to advance free trade. It isn't perfect, but without it tariffs would probably be higher and trade levels lower.

[Pangloss]

Well I don't think she was a great writer, but she had a knack for convictive essay writing that I think was significant. I'm a sucker for a good rant (even if I don't agree with it), and she wrote some rants that are absolute classics. Most of her best work is non-fiction, though.

[Tetrahedrite]

Global free trade does not and cannot work. Only when Americans are willing to work for 12 dollars a week will free trade work.

 

As a seperate point, the US imposes tariffs on nearly all of Australia's primary exports, so it can't really call itself a leader in free trade.

[Aardvark]

. Most of her best work is non-fiction, though.

 

Her fiction sucks so i never bothered to read her non-fiction. Maybe i'll give it a look. Any suggestions?

[Pangloss]

Her fiction sucks so i never bothered to read her non-fiction. Maybe i'll give it a look. Any suggestions?

 

"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". It's a very short (337pps paperback with references and bibliography, currently in publication -- I think about eight bucks from Amazon), and a good general introduction to various Objectivist ideological positions and general philosophies. I mention it over some of the other works because some of the subjects covered have come back to "haunt" us in a way, such as Alan Greenspan's essay on monopolies (he has two essays in the book).

 

Fascinating stuff; just remember that there are logical counterpoints to their positions. IMO it's just excellent food for thought.

[Pangloss]

Global free trade does not and cannot work. Only when Americans are willing to work for 12 dollars a week will free trade work.

 

As a seperate point' date=' the US imposes tariffs on nearly all of Australia's primary exports, so it can't really call itself a leader in free trade.[/quote']

 

I've been out of town so I apologize for the delay, but I did want to respond to this. I can understand the thinking behind both of these positions, but I believe they're in error on both counts. Here's my thinking on it, for what it's worth:

 

1) This ("Global free trade does not and cannot work. Only when Americans are willing to work for 12 dollars a week will free trade work.") is clearly not the case. If it were the case, then the "WallMartization of America" (which was the direct result of Clinton removing trade barriers with China) would have resulted in 20-25% unemployment and a corresponding drop in average income and taxes collected. Almost exactly the opposite is the case -- unemployment is trivial, and all signs point to higher average income and tax revenue when 2005 gets tallied up. So the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

 

Another reason why that statement is in error (in my opinion) is that the phenomenon of cheap overseas labor is arguably a temporary one. Already we've seen a plethora of Asian countries offering cheap labor disappear, leaving only one country with cheap labor in the entire region (China). That only took 20 years.

 

That issue is also independent of the issue of free trade, in the sense that even in a protectionist economy a corporation still has the option of building plants overseas for product it intends to sell overseas.

 

In short, free trade cannot be dismissed so easily. The truth is more complicated.

 

2) Regarding your second point ("As a seperate point, the US imposes tariffs on nearly all of Australia's primary exports, so it can't really call itself a leader in free trade."), I would say that I think that's a valid complaint. But in my opinion the United States should not be singled out in this manner. Many countries behave equally bad if not worse.

 

And nobody imposes tarriffs without some kind of reason. The question is whether those tarriffs are objectively fair, to balance an anti-competitive discrepency, or for protectionist reasons. So stating that such-and-such country imposes tarriffs on some-other-country is actually an irrelevent piece of information.

 

For what it's worth, I believe an FTA is in the works between the US and Australia that would eliminate those tarrifs.

[Guest lordroho]

Just so you know...We in Canada take being called Canucks as much as you American's like being called Yankees..

Two issues regarding protectionism..SoftWood Lumber and Canadian Cattle.

#1.The World Court recently voted in Canada's favour regarding the illegal tarrifs that The US collected on Canada's Softwood Lumber..almost 1 Billion dollars.

#2.The closure of the US border to Canadian Cattle because of 2 cases of Bse in 10 years(in 100 thousand head of cattle )..the border was ordered to be reopened by your Congress but (as of this date) still remains closed...yet Japan by contrast has had over 10 cases of Bse in the last 6 years (with less than 8% of Canada's total Cattle)

What I find truly amazing, is that the United States has never "offically" recorded a single case of Bse(yet they have 200 times more cattle than Canada)..which statistically would seem to defy normal logic given the fact that every cattle producing country in the world has had cases of Bse... just some food for thought !!

Please remember that protectionism works both ways...

[Pangloss]

I'm afraid I don't know anything about softwood lumber, so I will reiterate my point about statements about such-and-such country imposing tariffs being irrelevent without further information. IMO any debate which begins with such a statement should be immediately stopped and full background about those tariffs disclosed immediately before continuing, so everyone knows both sides of the story.

 

The closure of the US border to Canadian Cattle because of 2 cases of Bse in 10 years(in 100 thousand head of cattle )..the border was ordered to be reopened by your Congress but (as of this date) still remains closed...yet Japan by contrast has had over 10 cases of Bse in the last 6 years (with less than 8% of Canada's total Cattle)

 

Funny you should mention that, because Japan has banned importing of American beef since our one case of BSE in 2003. The US made a statement to the WTO today about this that was in the news. Yup, you're quite right, protectionism does work both ways. We're arguing to the WTO that Japan is being protectionist, while we're being protectionist about Canadian beef.

 

I agree. It seems like all governments are busily pursuing two-wrongs agendas.

 

Of course, that doesn't let Canada off the hook, and it doesn't disprove my speculations in the second point of post #1 of this thread.