US defeated in trade war?

[stormbind]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3400259.stm

The USA has backed down on previous arguments over illegal trade policies, and the EU is increasing the pressure yet again.

Is the USA justified in breaking international law in attempting to shield it's economy from foreign competition?

 

[thestonesfan]

Yes, but I don't think it helps us in the least.

Bush will probably want to repeal the policy, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

 

[Capulet]

Originally posted by stormbind
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3400259.stm

The USA has backed down on previous arguments over illegal trade policies, and the EU is increasing the pressure yet again.

Is the USA justified in breaking international law in attempting to shield it's economy from foreign competition?

I'm from the state that Senator Byrd represents (West Virginia)
and I think that he makes some really good decisions in Congress, though I don't know the history of this one.

 

[thestonesfan]

He's probably going for Union support. He is a democrat, after all.

 

[taper]

Every country has a right to protect it's economy. It may be international law, but from what I've seen int'l law is largely ignored by many major countries when it serves their purpose. I don't know who wrote this law either, but it could have been by people that would benefit greatly from increased exports to countries like the US.

 

[RoddyVR]

i dont quite understand this whole thing. but mostly i see the prase "protect its economy from the rest of the world" as some sort of hypocritical double speak propaganda.

how can you protect an economy as large as the US's from the outside world, when a lot of it is BASED on the outside world (take oil as a good example)

 

[thestonesfan]

@taper

But it doesn't protect our economy, it protects our workers who want too much money and our Unions that want too much control.

That said, I don't know the specifics of this case. So I'm probably off topic. Sorry.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The US wants to liberalize trade when it suites itself. In the mid to long term that will blow in it's face.

 

[Ossric]

the US supports free trade, as long as they can produce the products and export them freely..

 

[Yago]

It's simple, if one country puts taxes (or anything with the same effect) on a good from a foreign country, the other country will do the same. Who would deny the second country the right to do so ?

 

[funxus]

I think it's stupid of USA to put up taxes in the first place. IIRC the US has always been the ones pushing other countries to introduce free trade (because it's benefitted USA). Now that it doesn't benefit USA as much, free trade suddenly isn't as important...

 

[r4ge]

Its called power politics or real politik. One of the main understanding of this term, is that one tries to find the option which is profitable for himself. They are only concerned with relative gains, that is to profit more than the rest.

 

[amadeus]

There is, in effect, no "free trade" today. In both the United States and Europe, businesses receive subsidies that are basically protectionist trade policies through a different medium.

If the EU were really interested in real free trade, they would have to take drastic domestic steps to do so.

 

[Free Enterprise]

You could turn the argument on the accuser. Why do they use protectionism if they want free trade from another party? Therefore it can and does run both ways.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
You could turn the argument on the accuser. Why do they use protectionism if they want free trade from another party? Therefore it can and does run both ways.

Yes. This should have been mentioned earlier.

 

[jack merchant]

Nonsense; the EU subscribes to the same WTO laws that the US does; when the EU violates them, the US can and will (and already has in the past) take them to WTO arbitration.

Really, how difficult is it to follow the rules you yourselves agreed on ?

 

[h4ppy]

^exactly we go to arbitrition unlike what you guys have taken to doing recently which was threaten sanctions in a selfserving, biased, and generally mean-spirited way.

 

[jack merchant]

I think you don't understand - the sanctions threatened by the EU are allowed by the WTO in retaliation for this nasty bit of legislation, just like the US threatened sanctions as well during the GM-foods imbroglio. Want to know why ? Because without sanctions, all the WTO agreements become nothing but a dead letter, a useless bit of paper for the WTO members to wipe their backsides with.
Call them mean and self-serving (something which by itself you don't do your case any favours with either), but then they would still be mean and self-serving threats in response to a mean and self-serving bit of protectionism.

 

[Ossric]

what some people fail to understand is that you free to have protectionistic measures. BUT if you sign a contract where you agree free trade on certain areas, you're obligated to follow your actions. No need to point the finger at the one making the complaint..

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by jack merchant
Nonsense; the EU subscribes to the same WTO laws that the US does; when the EU violates them, the US can and will (and already has in the past) take them to WTO arbitration.

This proves the point I made.

The United States HAS violated the International Law(s). However, this proves I wasn't wrong in saying that both sides have done it. That means we can therefore safely say to the last post that you cannot avoid the fact that the major sides have not totally avoided breaking the agreement. Ignore this however if the post was directed at someone else.