Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Protectionist Move?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Protectionist Move?

    Unique move or first volley of a protectionist trend?

    "Sept. 11, 2009, 10:56 p.m. EDT ·
    Obama to hit China with tough tariff on tires

    By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Obama administration will impose stiff tariffs on imports of Chinese-made tires after finding that a surge of imports has disrupted the U.S. domestic market.
    President Barack Obama signed an order on Friday to impose the special punitive tariffs for three years, the White House announced.
    The action is the first major trade enforcement action of his presidency and comes less than two weeks before a high-profile summit of the leaders of the Group of 20 nations, including China.
    It is the first time the U.S. government has imposed special "safeguard" provisions to protect a U.S. industry from Chinese competition.
    "The president decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
    In the first year, the tariff will be 35%, falling to 30% in the second year and 25% in the third year. The tariff would be on top of the current 4% tariff. The tariffs will take effect in 15 days.
    U.S. imports of Chinese tires have risen from 14.6 million in 2004 to 46 million last year, accounting for about one-sixth of the U.S. market. Four U.S. tire plants have closed in the past two years, and more than 5,000 workers have lost their jobs.
    The United Steelworkers union had complained to the U.S. International Trade Commission about the disruption. The ITC had recommended a 55% tariff.
    The Chinese government and some U.S. industry groups had objected to the tariffs.
    "This administration is doing what is necessary to enforce trade agreements on behalf of American workers and manufacturers," said U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. "Enforcing trade laws is key to maintaining an open and free trading system."
    Kirk said China had agreed that its trading partners could impose such sanctions when it entered the World Trade Organization.
    Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch."

  • #2
    Re: A Protectionist Move?

    Originally posted by pianodoctor View Post
    Unique move or first volley of a protectionist trend?
    Or is it just that Obama needs some union votes for his health care initiatives. From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-auto-imports/ comes this speculation:

    And Roy Littlefield, executive vice president of the Tire Industry Association, which opposes the tariff, said it would not save American jobs but only cause tire manufacturers to move production to another country with less strict environmental and safety controls, less active unions and lower costs than the United States.

    At the same time, Obama needs support from unions -- also a key backer of the Democratic Party in elections -- as he makes a high-stakes push for national health care legislation.

    Rep. Louise M. Slaughter of New York, who chairs the House Rules Committee, said that although the 35 percent levy was less than the 55 percent recommended in July by the ITC, it was still a significant statement of administration support for organized labor.

    To reach a compromise on health care, Obama may need concessions from pro-labor Democrats who support a strong stand against China.
    Most folks are good; a few aren't.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A Protectionist Move?

      Originally posted by pianodoctor View Post
      Unique move or first volley of a protectionist trend?
      Neither. This is just the latest volley.

      Every major trading partner of the United States knows that if one wants to trade with that nation one has to do it on terms dictated by the USA.

      With more than one in four workers in USA auto and auto parts production now out of work, the industrial/commercial vehicle makers [like CAT] having laid off tens of thousands of workers, and the government now the proud controlling shareholder of both GM and Chrysler, it should be no surprise that the Commerce Department is being used once again to promote a "buy America" policy in the domestic vehicle & vehicle parts manufacturing sector.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A Protectionist Move?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...ow-erupts.html

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A Protectionist Move?

          Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
          Or is it just that Obama needs some union votes for his health care initiatives. From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-auto-imports/ comes this speculation:
          This to me sounds similar to Biden's selection as the Obama running mate. Fox News ran out expert after expert (including Dick Morris) and told viewers that Hilary backers (read: liberal leaning women) would stray over in droves to the McCain / Palin ticket. Viewers were supposed to ignore the whole significance of Roe v Wade and a host of other issues for those voters. And of course as was easily predicted, the opposite took place, with many more women voting for Obama than had voted for Kerry in 2004.

          What do you think would happen if Obama didn't impose these tarrifs - The UAW leaders would strongly urge the rank and file to contact Congressional Dems and demand they vote against Democrat health care initiatives? Not a chance. UAW and other union leaders have made it clear they want health care reform, almost any reform, as badly as Obama does.

          You know TPC, for someone that is so open to alternative theories, I think you have a soft spot for GOP agitprop.
          Last edited by Slimprofits; September 13, 2009, 10:07 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A Protectionist Move?

            Originally posted by babbittd View Post
            This to me sounds similar to Biden's selection as the Obama running mate. Fox News ran out expert after expert (including Dick Morris) and told viewers that Hilary backers (read: liberal leaning women) would stray over in droves to the McCain / Palin ticket. Viewers were supposed to ignore the whole significance of Roe v Wade and a host of other issues for those voters. And of course as was easily predicted, the opposite took place, with many more women voting for Obama than had voted for Kerry in 2004.

            What do you think would happen if Obama didn't impose these tarrifs - The UAW leaders would strongly urge the rank and file to contact Congressional Dems and demand they vote against Democrat health care initiatives? Not a chance. UAW and other union leaders have made it clear they want health care reform, almost any reform, as badly as Obama does.

            You know TPC, for someone that is so open to alternative theories, I think you have a soft spot for GOP agitprop.
            Wow, that's some deep thinking.

            All I can muster is that it's just another idiot politician making another ill-conceived decision with a total disregard for history. You know, the kind of stuff we've come to expect out of Washington (regardless of party).
            "...the western financial system has already failed. The failure has just not yet been realized, while the system remains confident that it is still alive." Jesse

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A Protectionist Move?

              Originally posted by babbittd View Post
              You know TPC, for someone that is so open to alternative theories, I think you have a soft spot for GOP agitprop.
              That is quite possible, yes.
              Most folks are good; a few aren't.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A Protectionist Move?

                Egg on my face:



                http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...09/01/afl_cio/

                TUESDAY, SEPT. 1, 2009 14:08 EDT
                AFL-CIO won't back healthcare reform without public option

                Comment

                Working...
                X