Obama mans up on trade

[rastaman]

The Obama Adm. stood up to China on Friday and raised the tariff on tires to 39%. This follows a large tariff imposed on steel pipe. It is not likely however that he did this without at least the grudging agreement of Beijing. China could put the US economy in a tailspin anytime they want to and it would not be wise to provoke them. Face is more important than anything else for China’s leaders and Obama will have to show them proper respect when they come to the G20 meeting in Philadelphia and later when he travels to China in November. Before you right-wingers get your pink panties in a wad; Bush never stood up to them on anything and was happy to do a Monica for them anytime.

Two thirds of our trade deficit is with China and it took the biggest jump in ten years last month. Bringing back normal trade (pre-Clinton/Bush) is the only way to have a middle class again. Republicans will fight this tooth and nail because the would prefer a mixed economy of feudalism and plantation slavery. There are more than a few Democrats who say that we live in a Global Economy and that’s just the way it is. You’ve got to be pretty stupid to sincerely believe this. Most are just willfully ignorant as their jobs depend on keeping up the fiction.

China has been plowing ahead full speed with fixed asset investment continuing to grow 30% year on year. They have been reducing the percentage of their economy that depends on trade at a rapid pace. They have been prudently disposing of their USD to buy anything and everything from copper mines to oil fields to zinc deposits anywhere somebody is stupid enough to take Dollars. China has banned the export of its strategic metals all the while the US continues to be strip mined. Last year Beijing handed out several hundred billion to their trading partners to cushion the impact from the collapse of the US economy.

Even if the trade and tariff problem is resolved there still is the matter of the trillions of funny money the Republicans have hung all over the world as well as even more trillions of debt obligations they created to balance the government books and securitized consumer debt that they created to avoid paying a living wage to US workers and prop up the banks. There should be some public hangings but that is too much to hope for.

[rastaman]

Ummmmmmm......I thought the Tea Baggers would have been delighted with this news.

[ant1999e]

You were all excited thinking you were going to get teabagged.

[Smiling Assassin27]

let's see if he mans up when China drops the hammer on us economically. obama is certainly no student of history, so he probably has no idea how trade wards escalate into real wars over time. i'm no economist, but at a time when the economy is down, this move will probably result in higher prices for tires and less tire sales in America.

he's just incompetent enough regarding economics to start tariffing our allies, which should go over like a lead balloon. just another example of obama's blood oath with big labor--purely political in nature, not economic.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

let's see if he mans up when China drops the hammer on us economically. obama is certainly no student of history, so he probably has no idea how trade wards escalate into real wars over time. i'm no economist, but at a time when the economy is down, this move will probably result in higher prices for tires and less tire sales in America.

he's just incompetent enough regarding economics to start tariffing our allies, which should go over like a lead balloon. just another example of obama's blood oath with big labor--purely political in nature, not economic.

I'm trying to figure out this vehement hatred of Obama you (and many others) exhibit. You've been doing it since the day he was elected, before you could have possibly known what he was going to do. Everything the guy does, from signing somebody else's bill to speaking to kids in schools is cause for a new, hysterical attack. I can really only surmise that it has more to do with who he is than what he is doing.

[Garcia Bronco]

Great story...except the executive branch can't raise taxes on anyone. This smells of bull****.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Ummmmmmm......I thought the Tea Baggers would have been delighted with this news.

I think I am ok with Obama's stance on this one, I will need to learn more though. I have always been into simply holding other countries to the same standards we have in trade. A simple mirior tax -- if China taxes our stuff 5% we do the same and so on. The best way to be free from China is to reduce our collective debt -- in fact the best way to be free from all undue influence is to address it. We clearly did not do that under Bush, and so far we have not done that under this admin.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm trying to figure out this vehement hatred of Obama you (and many others) exhibit. You've been doing it since the day he was elected, before you could have possibly known what he was going to do. Everything the guy does, from signing somebody else's bill to speaking to kids in schools is cause for a new, hysterical attack. I can really only surmise that it has more to do with who he is than what he is doing.

Sometimes there is hatred on the national scene, that is clear. The right saw it with Bush and Palin, and now we are seeing some of it with Obama -- but if one speaks out against him does not mean one HAS TO BE a hater, or has to be a racist...his policies (some of them) and some of those he has surrounded himself with are not part of the American tradition. I think that teh hate/racist arguments I have been hearing more often by the left reflect how waek their arguments are -- and deflect from the central issues. I do "hate" some of the Obama admin policies, and think that some of them violate his oath to protect and defend the Constitution -- so I am duty bound to fight against his policies, that I think will hurt us long term, but I dont think, that hate motivates me, most of the time it is love of country.

[peacepipe]

So let get this straight,China is cheating by not honoring trade agreements & it's obamas' fault for calling them out on it!

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

so let get this straight,china is cheating by not honoring trade agreements & it's obamas' fault for calling them out on it!

+1

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

let's see if he mans up when China drops the hammer on us economically. obama is certainly no student of history, so he probably has no idea how trade wards escalate into real wars over time. i'm no economist, but at a time when the economy is down, this move will probably result in higher prices for tires and less tire sales in America.

he's just incompetent enough regarding economics to start tariffing our allies, which should go over like a lead balloon. just another example of obama's blood oath with big labor--purely political in nature, not economic.

Interesting. If Obama's incompetent about economics, that would make GWB what? Ignorant? And not because he doesn't understand economics.
Ignorant (as in stupid) because he let ideology trump everything.

Gotta remember that Obama is trying to clean up the mess GWB left. He "manning up" and doing what needs to be done.

[watermock]

Read the article how the Chinese have been tricked by the illuminati, and they're not particuliarly happy about it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bob

Sometimes there is hatred on the national scene, that is clear. The right saw it with Bush and Palin, and now we are seeing some of it with Obama -- but if one speaks out against him does not mean one HAS TO BE a hater, or has to be a racist...his policies (some of them) and some of those he has surrounded himself with are not part of the American tradition. I think that teh hate/racist arguments I have been hearing more often by the left reflect how waek their arguments are -- and deflect from the central issues. I do "hate" some of the Obama admin policies, and think that some of them violate his oath to protect and defend the Constitution -- so I am duty bound to fight against his policies, that I think will hurt us long term, but I dont think, that hate motivates me, most of the time it is love of country.

Bush lied us into a war and Palin could not speak with out insulting somebody. In other words, they were getting "reactions" based on something they had done. I haven't seen Obama do either of those things. Obama has been getting blasted from day one for nothing other than who he is, not anything he has done. Get real.

[Bronx33]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

let's see if he mans up when China drops the hammer on us economically. obama is certainly no student of history, so he probably has no idea how trade wards escalate into real wars over time. i'm no economist, but at a time when the economy is down, this move will probably result in higher prices for tires and less tire sales in America.

he's just incompetent enough regarding economics to start tariffing our allies, which should go over like a lead balloon. just another example of obama's blood oath with big labor--purely political in nature, not economic.

Ya iam kinda curious to see if the mighty community oganizer can make in out in the big world should prove interesting.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm trying to figure out this vehement hatred of Obama you (and many others) exhibit. You've been doing it since the day he was elected, before you could have possibly known what he was going to do. Everything the guy does, from signing somebody else's bill to speaking to kids in schools is cause for a new, hysterical attack. I can really only surmise that it has more to do with who he is than what he is doing.

I think it's pretty obv why. It's the elephant in the room.

[Seamus]

This article was written some time ago and is general in discussion, however fits with this argument that I believe is "special interest" charged.

Trade versus Protectionism



There's a growing anti-trade sentiment in our country. Much of the dialogue is grossly misinformed. Let's try to untangle it a bit with a few questions and observations. First, does the U.S. trade with Japan and England? Put another way, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament? An affirmative answer is pure nonsense. When I purchased my Lexus, I had nothing to do with either the Japanese Diet or the U.S. Congress. Through an intermediary, a Lexus dealer, I dealt with Toyota Motor Corporation.

While it might be convenient to speak of one country trading with another, such aggregation can conceal a lot of evil, particularly when people call for trade barriers. For example, what would be a moral case for third-party interference, by either the Japanese Diet or the U.S. Congress, with an exchange between me and Toyota Motor Corporation? Some might reason that since Japan places restrictions on U.S. products entering their country, an appropriate retaliatory measure is not to allow Japanese products to freely enter the U.S. By the way, Japanese protectionist restrictions on rice imports force Japanese consumers to pay three or four times the world price for rice. How much sense does it make for Congress to retaliate against Japan by imposing restrictions on their products thereby forcing American consumers, say Lexus buyers, to pay higher prices? Should our rule be: If one country screws its citizens we should retaliate by screwing our citizens?

Since there is no moral argument for preventing one person from trading with another, anti-traders shift their argument to a patriotic appeal such as suggesting that we're losing our manufacturing sector. That doesn't square with the facts. According to a report given by Dr. William Strauss, senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, titled "Is U.S. Losing Its Manufacturing Base?" (http://www.edcchicago.org/ecom/2008/edc062508.htm) the answer is no. In each of the past 60 years, U.S. manufacturing output growth has averaged 4 percent and productivity growth has averaged 3 percent. Manufacturing is going through the same process as agriculture. In 1900, 41 percent of American workers were employed in agriculture; today, only 2 percent are and agricultural output is greater. In 1940, 35 percent of workers were employed in manufacturing jobs; today, it's about 10 percent. Again, because of huge productivity gains, manufacturing output is greater.

The decline in manufacturing employment is not limited to the U.S. Since 2000, China has lost over 4.5 million manufacturing jobs. In fact, nine of the top 10 manufacturing countries, which produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada, and Mexico), have lost manufacturing jobs but their manufacturing output has risen.

Despite the pretense of being a free trade nation, the U.S. has significant barriers to trade that come in the form of tariffs, quotas and steep regulatory barriers. Our restrictions are just not as onerous as many other countries but there's a push to make them so. It's simple politics. The people who face foreign competition, say management and workers in the auto industry, are well organized, have narrowly shared interests and the resources to have considerable clout in Washington to get Congress to enact trade barriers. Restricting foreign competition means higher prices for their products, and hence higher profits and fuller employment in their industry. The people who are benefited by foreign competition, say auto consumers, have widely dispersed interests; they are not organized at all and have little clout in Washington. You never see consumers descending on Washington complaining about cheap prices for foreign products; it's always domestic producers who do the complaining.

The relationship between prosperity and economic freedom, including free trade, is a no-brainer. But if you need hard evidence, check out the Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom" (http://www.heritage.org/Index). You'll find that nations having the greatest measure of economic freedom are the most prosperous and peaceful.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Seamus

This article was written some time ago and is general in discussion, however fits with this argument that I believe is "special interest" charged.

Trade versus Protectionism



There's a growing anti-trade sentiment in our country. Much of the dialogue is grossly misinformed. Let's try to untangle it a bit with a few questions and observations. First, does the U.S. trade with Japan and England? Put another way, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament? An affirmative answer is pure nonsense. When I purchased my Lexus, I had nothing to do with either the Japanese Diet or the U.S. Congress. Through an intermediary, a Lexus dealer, I dealt with Toyota Motor Corporation.

While it might be convenient to speak of one country trading with another, such aggregation can conceal a lot of evil, particularly when people call for trade barriers. For example, what would be a moral case for third-party interference, by either the Japanese Diet or the U.S. Congress, with an exchange between me and Toyota Motor Corporation? Some might reason that since Japan places restrictions on U.S. products entering their country, an appropriate retaliatory measure is not to allow Japanese products to freely enter the U.S. By the way, Japanese protectionist restrictions on rice imports force Japanese consumers to pay three or four times the world price for rice. How much sense does it make for Congress to retaliate against Japan by imposing restrictions on their products thereby forcing American consumers, say Lexus buyers, to pay higher prices? Should our rule be: If one country screws its citizens we should retaliate by screwing our citizens?

If a Japanese company can enter the U.S. market for its product, but a U.S. company cannot enter the Japan market for its product, the common sense byproduct of this that more jobs are going to be created in Japan and jobs lost U.S. since Japan now has two markets to sell its product while the U.S. is limited to sharing of one market. This is especially true in countries that have slave labor and lack basic safety and environmental standards.

This does tho, really benefit transnational corporations!

Originally Posted by Seamus

Since there is no moral argument for preventing one person from trading with another, anti-traders shift their argument to a patriotic appeal such as suggesting that we're losing our manufacturing sector. That doesn't square with the facts. According to a report given by Dr. William Strauss, senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, titled "Is U.S. Losing Its Manufacturing Base?" (http://www.edcchicago.org/ecom/2008/edc062508.htm) the answer is no. In each of the past 60 years, U.S. manufacturing output growth has averaged 4 percent and productivity growth has averaged 3 percent. Manufacturing is going through the same process as agriculture. In 1900, 41 percent of American workers were employed in agriculture; today, only 2 percent are and agricultural output is greater. In 1940, 35 percent of workers were employed in manufacturing jobs; today, it's about 10 percent. Again, because of huge productivity gains, manufacturing output is greater.

The decline in manufacturing employment is not limited to the U.S. Since 2000, China has lost over 4.5 million manufacturing jobs. In fact, nine of the top 10 manufacturing countries, which produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada, and Mexico), have lost manufacturing jobs but their manufacturing output has risen.

Skewed. Look around you and see where things are made.

Glad they mentioned S. Korea tho. They went from a 3rd world country to an economic powerhouse in the last 50 years. They did this almost solely by practicing protectionism and focusing on exports. A country that makes something is a country that is creating wealth. A country that doesn't make something is losing wealth.

Originally Posted by Seamus

Despite the pretense of being a free trade nation, the U.S. has significant barriers to trade that come in the form of tariffs, quotas and steep regulatory barriers. Our restrictions are just not as onerous as many other countries but there's a push to make them so. It's simple politics. The people who face foreign competition, say management and workers in the auto industry, are well organized, have narrowly shared interests and the resources to have considerable clout in Washington to get Congress to enact trade barriers. Restricting foreign competition means higher prices for their products, and hence higher profits and fuller employment in their industry. The people who are benefited by foreign competition, say auto consumers, have widely dispersed interests; they are not organized at all and have little clout in Washington. You never see consumers descending on Washington complaining about cheap prices for foreign products; it's always domestic producers who do the complaining.

The relationship between prosperity and economic freedom, including free trade, is a no-brainer. But if you need hard evidence, check out the Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom" (http://www.heritage.org/Index). You'll find that nations having the greatest measure of economic freedom are the most prosperous and peaceful.

Rehashing that unregalated free trade is great for multi-national corporations, which obviously it is. They can make things with no control in regards to anything at almost no price with slave labor. That's great for them. You're just sacrificing the entire American economy in the process.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Skewed. Look around you and see where things are made.

Glad they mentioned S. Korea tho. They went from a 3rd world country to an economic powerhouse in the last 50 years. They did this almost solely by practicing protectionism and focusing on exports. A country that makes something is a country that is creating wealth. A country that doesn't make something is losing wealth.

Rehashing that unregalated free trade is great for multi-national corporations, which obviously it is. They can make things with no control in regards to anything at almost no price with slave labor. That's great for them. You're just sacrificing the entire American economy in the process.

The intent of the article was to point out consumers don't win, that most trade decisions are based on special interest with minimal benifit.

Addressing your comments, I have two ways to look at it. Why US corporations do business overseas?
1) Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.
Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries.

2) Despite cheap labor overseas, International labor Comparisons (ILC) shows the American worker has been quite competitive.
However how long can this last without capital investment back into the companies due to taxes, labor unions concerned with their bottom dollar and not the workers (look at Detroit, why does unskilled labor make the same as skilled? Crazy compensation and retirement packages, full paychecks being collected while not working, ect. Then look at Toyota in Texas) couple this with cap & trade and over bearing regulation by a government with loop holes for special interest, and policy changes demonizing the latest targeted legal business (watch the US lumber, cigarette, coal power plant, or refinery).

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Bob

Sometimes there is hatred on the national scene, that is clear. The right saw it with Bush and Palin, and now we are seeing some of it with Obama -- but if one speaks out against him does not mean one HAS TO BE a hater, or has to be a racist...his policies (some of them) and some of those he has surrounded himself with are not part of the American tradition. I think that teh hate/racist arguments I have been hearing more often by the left reflect how waek their arguments are -- and deflect from the central issues. I do "hate" some of the Obama admin policies, and think that some of them violate his oath to protect and defend the Constitution -- so I am duty bound to fight against his policies, that I think will hurt us long term, but I dont think, that hate motivates me, most of the time it is love of country.

Don't forget how much the GOP and conservatives absolutely loathed and hated both Bill and Hillary Clinton from 1992-2000. And keep in mind Hillary was hated, marginalized, and smeared from 1992-2008. Its no wonder Sarah Palin is now getting the same. Except it just beginning for Palin.

Also, Obama is getting 30 death threats a day since he entered office. Thats 900 death threats a month! Thats over 81,000 death threats by the end of September 2009. Can't remember Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II ever getting this many death threats.

There are also millions of Americans perhaps 10's of millions who beileve Bush II violated his oath of office a multitude of times and Bush has hurt this country long term; especially if Obama can't correct Bush's Blunders. We will just have to wait and see.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Seamus

The intent of the article was to point out consumers don't win, that most trade decisions are based on special interest with minimal benifit.

And my intent was to show the article was a failure.

Originally Posted by Seamus

Addressing your comments, I have two ways to look at it. Why US corporations do business overseas?
1) Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.
Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries.

The U.S. has one of the highest listed corporate tax rates on paper, but one of the lowest realized tax rates on corporations in practice (which for some reasons doesn't get mentioned often).

Originally Posted by Seamus

2) Despite cheap labor overseas, International labor Comparisons (ILC) shows the American worker has been quite competitive.
However how long can this last without capital investment back into the companies due to taxes, labor unions concerned with their bottom dollar and not the workers (look at Detroit, why does unskilled labor make the same as skilled? Crazy compensation and retirement packages, full paychecks being collected while not working, ect. Then look at Toyota in Texas) couple this with cap & trade and over bearing regulation by a government with loop holes for special interest, and policy changes demonizing the latest targeted legal business (watch the US lumber, cigarette, coal power plant, or refinery).

Yes, look at the foreign auto companies in the U.S. We can't ship U.S. cars overseas because of tariffs (ie, 21% to ship to china, vs 2.5% for china to ship here). We subsidize to build new foreign plants here. And many of those foreign plants don't cover health costs for their workers, leaving the American tax payer to pick up the tab.

Talk about selling out this country for trans-national corporate interests!!!