amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
It'd be the only time in American history that the Communist Party would win ALL 435 Congressional seats, 33 Senate seats, and the President.
Has America started a war on trade?
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
It'd be the only time in American history that the Communist Party would win ALL 435 Congressional seats, 33 Senate seats, and the President.
Greadius
:yeah:
In order for hypocracy to exist, there must be a stated goal and opposing actions. Show me where any U.S. official has stated free trade of agricultural products was a goal of U.S. trade policy.
You're expanding the definition of the sweeping term 'free trade' to encompass much more than is meant by the people who hammer out trade treaties.
Free trade does not mean eliminating every barrier that exist to trade as soon as humanly possible. It is a process, and as the data you looked at clearly shows the U.S. is moving in the state direction of lowering trade barriers. Even in agriculture the barriers aren't increasing, they just aren't disapearing. The steel issue is getting so much attention because it is blatant hypocracy on the part of Mr. Bush. However, in order for a pattern of hypocracy to exist there must be conflict between stated goals and official action (what is meant, not what can be intepreted if you expand the eventual goal of free trade to mean everything, now).
So true. The U.N. couldn't concieve how another party could possibly win seats. Must have been too many contested races, throw the results out
Anyone who thinks that the U.S. needs election observers has a fundemental misunderstanding of what went wrong in the last election. There was no effort on the part of either side to skew the election results before the election. I'm sure rmsharpe could agree on nothing else about the election except for two things: 1. The flaws were with the interpretation of the system because many of the vaguer rules had never been tested instead of a concieted effort prior to the election, and are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the near future.
2. Our election system works in the big picture, we trust our own people and don't need observers to varify it. I'd trust right-wing Republicans before I'd trust U.N. observers.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
What do you mean never been tested?? Let me take you back to the year 1876, a republican called Rutherford B. Hayes was fighting against a democrat by the name of Samuel J. Tilden for the post of President of the United States. The first election result from 7 November 1876 indicated that Tilden was on course for a clear victory. He had won his home state, the swing states of Connecticut, New Jersey, and Indiana, and was expected to carry the solid South and most of the West. However a republican called Daniel Sickles realised that if Hayes lost no more Northern states and won Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina he would win by one electoral college vote. Sickles rushed off telegrams to Republican leaders in those states, under the signature of Republican national chairman Zachariah Chandler, who was sleeping off a bottle of whiskey, urging them to hold their states for the Republicans. The early edition of the New York Times on November 8 characterized the election as undecided; The Results Still Uncertain, read the headline. Its second edition gave Hayes 181 electoral votes, with Florida too close to call. When the dust settled, Tilden had won the popular vote, with 4,284,020 (51%) to Hayess 4,036,572 (48%), a margin of less than 250,000. Tildens 184 electoral votes were one short of a majority, while Hayess 165 electoral votes left him 20 ballots shy of the presidency. The remaining 20 electoral votes were in dispute: one from Oregon and 19 from the three Southern states Florida (4), Louisiana (8), and South Carolina (7). In the three Southern states, both parties were claiming victory in close elections and charging the other party with vote fraud. Being the party in power in those states, the Republicans had a majority on the returning boards, which would certify the election results. They threw out enough Democratic votes to give the election in their states to Hayes. In Florida, the state supreme court ruled in favor of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, but let Hayess margin of victory stand. The new Florida governor promptly appointed a Democratic returning board which announced that Tilden had carried the state. However Congress appointed a congressional committed to investigate. The committee decided to award all the disputed votes to Hayes. Hayes, in return, however, promised to end reconstruction. Hayes became the next President.
Funny how history can repeat itself.
Wow, did this one get nasty.
First of all, everybody calm down. What a weird thing that a banal issue like free trade would rattle everyone's nationalist shackles. Relax a bit.
I am opposed to Bush's move, on the grounds that it doesn't make any economic sense. It is hypocritical for a political party that preaches free trade to do something like this. The conservative commentator George Will made the point this past week that this action makes Bill Clinton, a Democrat, a better free-market supporter than George Bush. (Clinton repeatedly refused the steel lobby's requests for tariffs, despite heavy union pressure.)
Economists say that some protectionism can be a good thing for nascent industries when applied strategically. Unfortunately, protectionist policies are almost always born of political and not economic motives; the current case under examination being no exception. The operative word there was nascent: old, bloated and reform-resisting industries are most often the ones to receive protectionist gifts in reality. Both Europe and America are awash with protectionist policies for their respective pet sectors (read: "voting blocs") and both preach free trade to the rest of the world. In this way, American MidWest farmers, Welsh miners and French strawberry farmers continue old traditional lifestyles despite the fact they are money-losing businesses. To get around WTO regulations both Europe and America enact "stealth" protectionist policies through environmental, labor or health laws; the French are being called on this now for their continuing ban on British beef (from which local beef farmers have benefitted) and the recent EU airplane noise pollution regulation that conveniently excludes most Russian-made (and cheaper!) aircraft from EU skies, as well as the early American emissions standards imposed on cars (being an anti-Japanese car measure) all add up to technically legal economic exclusionary policies. I know Western European papers took up the EU-U.S. "banana war" trade disagreement, in which both Euro and American companies tried to monopolize the banana trade, but for all the nationalist rhetoric that flew most commodities analysts just shook their heads and labeled it a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
A suggestion would be for all parties to examine each case with an eye to its economic impact, and not according to one's national pride....
First of all, everybody calm down. What a weird thing that a banal issue like free trade would rattle everyone's nationalist shackles. Relax a bit.
I am opposed to Bush's move, on the grounds that it doesn't make any economic sense. It is hypocritical for a political party that preaches free trade to do something like this. The conservative commentator George Will made the point this past week that this action makes Bill Clinton, a Democrat, a better free-market supporter than George Bush. (Clinton repeatedly refused the steel lobby's requests for tariffs, despite heavy union pressure.)
Economists say that some protectionism can be a good thing for nascent industries when applied strategically. Unfortunately, protectionist policies are almost always born of political and not economic motives; the current case under examination being no exception. The operative word there was nascent: old, bloated and reform-resisting industries are most often the ones to receive protectionist gifts in reality. Both Europe and America are awash with protectionist policies for their respective pet sectors (read: "voting blocs") and both preach free trade to the rest of the world. In this way, American MidWest farmers, Welsh miners and French strawberry farmers continue old traditional lifestyles despite the fact they are money-losing businesses. To get around WTO regulations both Europe and America enact "stealth" protectionist policies through environmental, labor or health laws; the French are being called on this now for their continuing ban on British beef (from which local beef farmers have benefitted) and the recent EU airplane noise pollution regulation that conveniently excludes most Russian-made (and cheaper!) aircraft from EU skies, as well as the early American emissions standards imposed on cars (being an anti-Japanese car measure) all add up to technically legal economic exclusionary policies. I know Western European papers took up the EU-U.S. "banana war" trade disagreement, in which both Euro and American companies tried to monopolize the banana trade, but for all the nationalist rhetoric that flew most commodities analysts just shook their heads and labeled it a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
A suggestion would be for all parties to examine each case with an eye to its economic impact, and not according to one's national pride....
knowltok2
Deity
Amen to that. It may not be a good policy, but it is not something new and off the wall on the world scene. It is also not part of some master plan of America's to get free trade on its terms at the expense of the rest of the world. Like I tried to say earlier, this is not new, nor isolated. This type of thing has been flying pack and forth across the Atlantic and Pacific for some time now and will continue for quite a while. These are most likely just the growing pains of evolving towards a world market, and are not the stoff of alliance disolvement as some people have alluded to. Or at least I would hope that a short term tariff on steel, even if ill-conceived, doesn't cancel out decades of close friendship and support.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Greadius, you are still conveniently defining 'free trade' to suit your own argument - you are yet to put forward a cogent argument as to why the rest of the world should accept US, or EU for that matter, protection of agriculture whilst at the same time demanding that other countries accept the lowering of their trade barriers for non-agricultural US/EU goods and services.
You also conveniently overlook the fact that the US has been (for some time) the loudest advocate on the world stage for free trade and yet by giving in to domestic political pressures for protection diminishes it's own credibility in spreading the free trade message.
I'll say again, most countries are guilty of hypocrisy to some degree when it comes to 'free trade' including Australia, however the US by virtue of its assumed leadership on this issue ironically does the cause of free trade around the world major harm after indulging in domestic protectionism.
On the issue of free trade (like most things) nations will be judged by their actions and not words.
Good post Vrylakas I agree with most of what you wrote. The issue you raise about countries using environmental, health and labour laws as a surreptitious means of protectionism undoubtably occurs but doesn't diminish the real issues arising from the interaction between free trade and those areas of society.
One aspect of society in regard to free trade you didn't mention was 'culture', which IMO will cause more angst and be harder to address than the issue of winding down redundant industries with job losses that entails. Determining what 'cultural' aspects of a society should be imune from the effects of free trade will be an 'interesting' exercise.
Greadius
:yeah:
Is it impossible to seperate that two? The agricultural subsidies can go both ways you know... the U.S. isn't telling other nations to stop paying their farmers, are we (please provide link quoting U.S. official)?
No, I'm agreeing with you there, not overlooking it. But I am deflecting the blame. This was George W. Bush; not the same people that have engineered free trade over the last few decades. The U.S. trade representative literally had to eat his own words on this one because Bush changed his mind. There's no arguement here.
Then we agree again, except on semantics. The domestic protectionism persued is very minor, temprorary, and innocous compared to the general trend. What is more important to judge: the isolated incident of pandering to domestic politics or the general trend of lowering barriers to trade?
I'm glad we agree that the record is more important. I take it you've seen the graph of U.S. average tariffs and how it has plummeted over the last few decades and have decided to use that as a judgement over one political decision.
Unless of course you'd imply that the one decision that stands out from the trend of lowering trade barriers as is a sound base for judgement, which I don't believe you'd try to do.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Greadius, the latest example of US protectionism is not an isolated example and it is not reasonable or possible to separate agricultural production from the mix of free trade however much some may wish it - you have yet to put forward a reasonable argument for this proposition. These discussions are beginning to sound repetitive.
It probably hasn't occurred to you (and most Americans) that in Australia there is growing anger within the community (particularly the National Party, the smaller political party in the governing coalition representing farming interests) at American double standards on trade, to the point where some are openly questioning the value of our alliance. They don't represent anything like a majority opinion but that anger is there and it grows every time the US pulls a stunt like this.
I suspect this sort of debate is going on in other countries as well. American failure to understand the anger and frustration these sort of hypocritical decisions generate amongst their long time friends and allies may not cost the US in the short term, but eventually there may come a time when the issues of trade and foreign relations can no longer be separated.
Food for thought - tariff free!
It probably hasn't occurred to you (and most Americans) that in Australia there is growing anger within the community (particularly the National Party, the smaller political party in the governing coalition representing farming interests) at American double standards on trade, to the point where some are openly questioning the value of our alliance. They don't represent anything like a majority opinion but that anger is there and it grows every time the US pulls a stunt like this.
I suspect this sort of debate is going on in other countries as well. American failure to understand the anger and frustration these sort of hypocritical decisions generate amongst their long time friends and allies may not cost the US in the short term, but eventually there may come a time when the issues of trade and foreign relations can no longer be separated.
Food for thought - tariff free!
Greadius
:yeah:
And I'm still waiting for examples of raising tariffs...As compared to not lowering them like the rest of the world.
Questioning the alliance. Those doubts will last as long as it takes China to be a naval power
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Dino, hope you're happy with that heading, that should bring a few Euros into the debate.
As I've said previously both US and EU farm subsidies are hypocritical. If you're asking why concentrate on American perfidy the answer is simple. The issue that triggered this discussion was the US slapping tariffs on steel and because the US proclaims (like our friend Greadius) it's bona fides on free trade and then does the opposite - the EU are unashamedly protectionist on agriculture. I suppose we keep expecting the Americans to mean what they say, we're under no illusions with the EU.
Greadius, I've already given you some examples, you chose to ignore them because they don't suit your argument, if you're not prepared to consider what I've put in front of you then discussion becomes a bit pointless.
If you ever visit Australia let me know and apart from showing you around I'll arrange a meeting with an Australian Lamb producer and you can put your arguments to him - I'll be standing by to make sure he doesn't throttle you.
Here is a Euro view
I totally disagree about the tariffs that we have and the subsides that are paid to ex farmers and other industries and hope that politicians will stop being so conserved of what the lobby groups says and look on the economical and social benefits of getting rid of all tariffs.
And it doesnt become any better now when the U.S. has raised tariffs on steel. Please refer to my last post on how the U.S. have subsidised their steel industry.
I totally disagree about the tariffs that we have and the subsides that are paid to ex farmers and other industries and hope that politicians will stop being so conserved of what the lobby groups says and look on the economical and social benefits of getting rid of all tariffs.
And it doesnt become any better now when the U.S. has raised tariffs on steel. Please refer to my last post on how the U.S. have subsidised their steel industry.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Now I am going to assume that you know little about Welsh mining and are basising this on a stereotype because it isn't based on fact. There are no Welsh miners left apart from one mine (I think its only one). And that mine is only still working because it is one of the most productive in Europe produing very high-quality coal. So Welsh miners are not money-losing businesses and I am sure they would resent that impliciation.
Like I have previously said the EU is in the process of changing its CAP but as you can imagine its going to take some time.
I don't agree, the US record of tariff reduction is commendable and very welcome. However the first action of the new President, with regards to trade, was a tariff increase that had been repeatably rejected by the previous President. That doesn't bode well for the future, does it? America still has 3 or so years with this President, so that could mean 3 or so years of tariff increases. What would that do to the graph? Then there could be a possible 4 more years of tariff increases. Instead of looking back at the pattern and assuming that it will continue maybe you should look at the current situation and think how likely that will be? Who is to say that another ailing industry in a political important area won't be protected? Probably not Bush.
gjts00
Arrogant American
First off, if you think that 'ol Saddam isn't involved with international terrorist organizations, I believe you're mistaken. So, yes this is tied to the events of 9/11. If the Bush administration didn't have proof of such activities, I don't think that the US would be set to attack Iraq.
Second, I'm not concerned with how people in Europe (or anywhere else, for that matter) feel about "these plans". If they're not in favor of the US's course of action, fine. But IMO, if you'te not going to play the game, you forfeit your right to b1tch about the players.
And third, I think that an Anglo-American alliance would succede against any Iraqi resistance, despite a lack of assistance from the rest of the EU. So, to give you a direct answer to your question... I don't think that now is any better or worse a time to be "doing our best at pissing off the EU."
I thought that I'd explained why our oil hasn't been extracted yet quite well. I also didn't imply that such a turn of events would be a favorable course of action. I recomend that you (MrPresident) re-read my post on the subject. Because if you want to split hairs with me, you're going to have to do better than that.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
This was your post about why America hasn't yet drilled some of its oil resources. Now after reading this several times I have decided what I think you give as your reasons for this. America wants OPEC to use up all its oil so that it can have a monopoly of oil supply and that OPEC countries will have a destroyed economy. Firstly, OPEC countries do not have a great economy at the moment, oil production is controlled by the wealthy few who do not pass on the profits to the general public. Secondly, I don't think America would let OPEC have a monopoly (which they do have) on oil production for 30 years (and possibly 30 years in the future too) just so they could get a monopoly some time in the future. Thirdly, who is to say that oil will still have as much importance in the future anyway. Fourthly, according to the energy information agency based on current figures the middle east have 65.2% of the world's oil reserves and America has just 7.1%, that seems like a long wait. Finally, do you think that America would allow the amount of control that OPEC has on the economies of the developed world? Several world recessions have been caused by OPEC and their decision to cut oil production. I think you overestimate the amount of oil America has and underestimate the amount of oil OPEC has. Also you forget that in a free market people go for the cheaper supplier which is OPEC, proving that the cost of extracting America's oil would be higher than current oil prices. So have I done a little better?
I don't think he does have prove, at least not connecting Saddam to Osuma Bin Laden. If I understand the situation correctly, Bush is not worried about Saddam's connection to international terrorism but that he has been developing weapons of mass destruction. Current estimates say that in several years he will have the capably to lauch germ warfare missiles at Israel and American bases in the Middle East. That is why Bush wants Saddam out, also the fact that his Dad failed may have something to do with it. If there was evidence connecting Saddam to terrorism then I am sure that the EU would join a coalition but so far there is no evidence. I am worried that you are "not concerned" about Europe's views on these plans. If you wonder why many ordinary people in the Middle East (and around the world) feel that America is an imperialist nation only looking after its own self-interests, then thats why. America must learn that although they could do it alone, it is probably best to seek assistance from others. Why do you think that America felt it necessary to get Pakistan, India, Saudia Arabia etc as its allies in the Afgan war? so they could show the Arab (and Muslim) world this wasn't an attack on their culture but an attack on terrorism. Good world relations are not earned by doing what you like without the support of others, it is earned through cooperation, through respecting others, through compromise.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Bush Sr. didn't fail, we were bound by United Nations resolutions. The objective was to get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait..and that's what happened.
Reichsmarshal
Warlord
Ditch mercantilist/protectionist/socialist polices and get back to phsyiocracy. Free trade is much better than restricted, regulated trade. That is why Jefferson was by far one of the best presidents, he understood that being afraid of free trade isn't going to help. Milton Friedman is an example of a great economist.
BTW other countries have protectionist policies. They are only harmful.
BTW other countries have protectionist policies. They are only harmful.
Reichsmarshal
Warlord
The United States does not need the help of the European Union or the United Nations to take out terroism.
Warlord Sam
2500 hours and counting..
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2001
- Messages
- 379
Ok, so I'm not wading into the nationalistic sludge that has been drudged up... so if nobody minds, I will post on-topic with a reference to the title of the thread:
It appears America certainly *is* declaring war on trade
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3CK31DNYC&live=true&tagid=IXLYK5HZ8CC
And I voted in support of the tariff, if yer wondering. I support the 'war on trade', insofar as I welcome protective tariffs for American industry. This is my opinion, largely biased due to my being an American. However, this does not mean that I have a personal vendetta against all the other countries, nor do I think that America is superior to other countries; it is simply the place where I have my home, and I want my home to improve. We don't need to bring up whether or not America is dependant on Europe, and vice versa.
It appears America certainly *is* declaring war on trade
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3CK31DNYC&live=true&tagid=IXLYK5HZ8CC
And I voted in support of the tariff, if yer wondering. I support the 'war on trade', insofar as I welcome protective tariffs for American industry. This is my opinion, largely biased due to my being an American. However, this does not mean that I have a personal vendetta against all the other countries, nor do I think that America is superior to other countries; it is simply the place where I have my home, and I want my home to improve. We don't need to bring up whether or not America is dependant on Europe, and vice versa.
Similar threads
- Poll
