Bush and free-trade
-
John Judd wrote: Q. How do you know when a politician is lying? A. His/her lips are moving. Q. At what time during the day is a politician being a hypocrite? A. When s/he is awake. Really Funny! -:suss:Matt Newman / Anti-Linux Activist:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†Sadly, generally true...
-
Are there any Americans out there who are still confused about why they are often disliked by other nations? :suss: I've met nice americans, and I don't have a problem with any of them personally, but their foreign policy, to put it mildly, sucks. :(( "I've read the Bible through a couple of times and it is a nice collection of morality stories and adventure fiction. Sort of like Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer except without the laughs." -- Michael P Butler 14 Mar '02
Daniel Ferguson wrote: but their foreign policy, to put it mildly, sucks What, we don't give foreign countries enough hand-outs? At least the US has a foreign policy and doesn't sit back like pacifists. If we didn't engage and give out the goodies, you others would be crying even more.
-
And the thing that is really disappointing is that so few Americans are aware of the anti free-trade stance that their government has. There's also little things like you can't mail a single bottle of wine into the States unless you are a broker, nor can I bring in CodeProject T-shirts to the US to giveaway. It's insane and totally against everything that is preached. It's very, very frustrating. cheers, Chris Maunder
You seem to think that the US is the only country that imposes tarrifs on imported goods. Am I missing something here? Can't speak much for the Lumber industry, but the US Steel industry is in near collapse. Most major US based Steel Corporations have either filed for bankruptcy or are currently in the process. The US cannot afford to have all their steel products made in foreign countries, nor can any other industrialized nation. The facts are that this steel has been being dumped for years on our markets, and it is time something was done to correct it.
-
You seem to think that the US is the only country that imposes tarrifs on imported goods. Am I missing something here? Can't speak much for the Lumber industry, but the US Steel industry is in near collapse. Most major US based Steel Corporations have either filed for bankruptcy or are currently in the process. The US cannot afford to have all their steel products made in foreign countries, nor can any other industrialized nation. The facts are that this steel has been being dumped for years on our markets, and it is time something was done to correct it.
Bill Leibold wrote: You seem to think that the US is the only country that imposes tarrifs on imported goods The point here isn't tarrifs, the point is hypocrisy (and a gripe about me not being able to mail a friend a bottle of wine). If George got up and said 'We're having tarrifs and trade restrictions because we need to bolster our economy' then I have no problem with that at all. When Goerge tells the rest of the world that they must embrace free trade, but then doesn't participate in that himself, then that gets up my goat. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: but their foreign policy, to put it mildly, sucks What, we don't give foreign countries enough hand-outs? At least the US has a foreign policy and doesn't sit back like pacifists. If we didn't engage and give out the goodies, you others would be crying even more.
AS a percentage of GDP the USA gives less than most developed countries . This is made up in absolute terms because the US economy is so big. So they give more than everyone else in absolute terms , but less in relative terms. Can't argue about the US policy not sitting back like pacifists , the european countries are not prpepared to spend the money needed to get a decent sized military . Funny that when you think of it , The US spends more as a percentage of GDP on the military than Europe , but less as a percentage of GDP on aid. As regards the recent steel tarrifs , then from this side of the pond it looks like pure protectionism . We have gone through drastic cuts in Steel production and are left with one of the most efficient steel producers in the world , US manufacturers are reputed to be overmanned and inneficient . I can understand anti-dumping tarriffs , but tarriffs to protect inneficient industries are just short sighted . It wins votes though , and I suspect that is what this is all about . The alternative is massive redundancies in a strategic US industry , but alas that is an almost inevitable result of a globalised economy . The production will go to where it is most efficient , and that has many repurcussions. You say the glass is half empty, I say that makes it your round.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: but their foreign policy, to put it mildly, sucks What, we don't give foreign countries enough hand-outs? At least the US has a foreign policy and doesn't sit back like pacifists. If we didn't engage and give out the goodies, you others would be crying even more.
huh? A few points I would like to respond to there; but most of them have already been discussed in this list recently. But the one that I would like to point out is: At least the US has a foreign policy and doesn't sit back like pacifists Definition of pacifist: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes so is that a bad thing? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
I found this interesting. All of these stories occured this month.
"Bush imposed hefty tariffs of up to 30 percent on a range of steel imports on March 5..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38046-2002Mar16.html
Bush Spreads Message of Free Trade "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue. ... " http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20020324_791.html
U.S. Imposes Canadian Lumber Tariffs "The U.S. government issued duties Friday averaging 29 percent on a popular type of Canadian lumber..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3369-2002Mar22.html:confused:
It only stands to reason that the bigger your economy is the greater will be the probability of forming policy which is contradictory. The U.S. must protect its economy the same way every other country does, but because of the size of our economy the problem of defending it is proportionally more complex. I don't particularly like the polilicies which the Bush administration has enacted lately, but I do appreciate that they are acting in what they consider to be the best interests of the U.S. economy. (However, I do think the steel tariff's were in large part an attempt to throw a bone to the labor unions to get their support in our mid-term elections later this year.) Also, it stands to reason that Americans would be less inclined to be aware of tariffs which obviously don't impact most of us on a daily basis. Again, this is a large country. Most Americans pay attention to local politics but do not concern themselves too much with federal and international issues. The truth is that the U.S. was very poorly designed politically to be a world super-power. The designers of our system gave all their attention to how we were going to work internally and gave little consideration to how we would interact with the world once we had accrued the sort of power we enjoy today. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
You seem to think that the US is the only country that imposes tarrifs on imported goods. Am I missing something here? Can't speak much for the Lumber industry, but the US Steel industry is in near collapse. Most major US based Steel Corporations have either filed for bankruptcy or are currently in the process. The US cannot afford to have all their steel products made in foreign countries, nor can any other industrialized nation. The facts are that this steel has been being dumped for years on our markets, and it is time something was done to correct it.
Well maybe the industry should collapse if it can't pay for itself. It should either restructure making itself more streamlined, so that it can create a product which is able to make itself attractive to the marketplace. Or decide to specialize in making high quality products, at a higher price, to specialized markets. That is the point of a free market. Something that America is suppost to be based upon. I mean why can these foreigners ship a cheaper product? If you say "They don't get paid as much" well maybe you are being overpaid. If you say "Well they work in sweatshops" then lobby your government to ban imports from those countries until they improve the working conditions (and also do the same for Nike and other such industry giants) The thing is you should probably be able to make a product cheaper locally as you don't have shipping costs. But why bother when you are at the top of the deck and you can have you cake and eat it? "I'm the king of the castle your the dirty rascal..." George still in junior school... Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
You seem to think that the US is the only country that imposes tarrifs on imported goods. Am I missing something here? Can't speak much for the Lumber industry, but the US Steel industry is in near collapse. Most major US based Steel Corporations have either filed for bankruptcy or are currently in the process. The US cannot afford to have all their steel products made in foreign countries, nor can any other industrialized nation. The facts are that this steel has been being dumped for years on our markets, and it is time something was done to correct it.
Steel companies should go out of business and should not be artificially supported if they cannot compete.
-
Steel companies should go out of business and should not be artificially supported if they cannot compete.
sounds logical. and i don't agree with the tarrif, either. but what if the US suddenly went to war with japan, india and china - where would we get our steel from then? that's right, nowhere. we'd be screwed. see, it's also important to preserve the capacity to make steel, food and oil, even if it means propping up inefficient businesses. it's a much more complex situation than it appears. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
-
sounds logical. and i don't agree with the tarrif, either. but what if the US suddenly went to war with japan, india and china - where would we get our steel from then? that's right, nowhere. we'd be screwed. see, it's also important to preserve the capacity to make steel, food and oil, even if it means propping up inefficient businesses. it's a much more complex situation than it appears. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
Yup. Just take a look at WWII and how much was won and lost because of oil. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
sounds logical. and i don't agree with the tarrif, either. but what if the US suddenly went to war with japan, india and china - where would we get our steel from then? that's right, nowhere. we'd be screwed. see, it's also important to preserve the capacity to make steel, food and oil, even if it means propping up inefficient businesses. it's a much more complex situation than it appears. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
Chris Losinger wrote: but what if the US suddenly went to war with japan, india and china - where would we get our steel from then? that's right, nowhere. we'd be screwed. So are you saying that free trade is ok in some industries but not others ? If that is the case then every country will have the right to decide what industries they apply free trade to ? The result will be chaos. Would you include every industry that was vital to war ? If you say yes , then I will challenge you to name an industry that could not be construed as vital to war. Globalisation means that the whole world is more important than ANY individual country. Regards Andrew Torrance You say the glass is half empty, I say that makes it your round.
-
huh? A few points I would like to respond to there; but most of them have already been discussed in this list recently. But the one that I would like to point out is: At least the US has a foreign policy and doesn't sit back like pacifists Definition of pacifist: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes so is that a bad thing? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
Yes. Pacifism Does Not Work.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Yes. Pacifism Does Not Work.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Yes. Pacifism Does Not Work. IMHO neither does Politics, but we still ain't learnt that lesson... ;P Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul Watson -
Daniel Ferguson wrote: but their foreign policy, to put it mildly, sucks What, we don't give foreign countries enough hand-outs? At least the US has a foreign policy and doesn't sit back like pacifists. If we didn't engage and give out the goodies, you others would be crying even more.
Where did you get this hand-out stuff from? This thread was started about tariffs that the US imposes on other countries trading with them -- who's getting the hand-outs here? :rolleyes: As for, the US going around helping other nations -- we all know that's a load of crap as well. I'm sure the Vietnamese people hold a celebration every year to thank those benevolent Americans who came to help them. And so on, etc.... The current situation in Afganistan has roots in the Americans funding Osama in the Afghani war against Russia. Now look where they are. If the Americans had just kept their hands to themselves they would be better off, but no they can't do that. If that's what you think of as helping other countries -- I'll do without, thanks. X| "I've read the Bible through a couple of times and it is a nice collection of morality stories and adventure fiction. Sort of like Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer except without the laughs." -- Michael P Butler 14 Mar '02
-
Yes. Pacifism Does Not Work.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Oh come on. Of course pacifism taken to an extreme is not goint to work. But that shouldn't stop people from trying to find a passive solution to problems. Of course there are times that such policies don't work, and force has to be used. But the way the previous message was stated was that that was is the first approach to use. It should not be. Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
sounds logical. and i don't agree with the tarrif, either. but what if the US suddenly went to war with japan, india and china - where would we get our steel from then? that's right, nowhere. we'd be screwed. see, it's also important to preserve the capacity to make steel, food and oil, even if it means propping up inefficient businesses. it's a much more complex situation than it appears. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
Because India and China are nuclear powers (even H-bombs owner for China), have a good luck if U are involved in a war against them. And good luck for the rest of the Humanity too, it would be helpful to survive a nuclear war. ------------------------------------ Ash to ash, and clay to clay, If the enemy doesn't get you Your own folk may ------------------------------------
-
It only stands to reason that the bigger your economy is the greater will be the probability of forming policy which is contradictory. The U.S. must protect its economy the same way every other country does, but because of the size of our economy the problem of defending it is proportionally more complex. I don't particularly like the polilicies which the Bush administration has enacted lately, but I do appreciate that they are acting in what they consider to be the best interests of the U.S. economy. (However, I do think the steel tariff's were in large part an attempt to throw a bone to the labor unions to get their support in our mid-term elections later this year.) Also, it stands to reason that Americans would be less inclined to be aware of tariffs which obviously don't impact most of us on a daily basis. Again, this is a large country. Most Americans pay attention to local politics but do not concern themselves too much with federal and international issues. The truth is that the U.S. was very poorly designed politically to be a world super-power. The designers of our system gave all their attention to how we were going to work internally and gave little consideration to how we would interact with the world once we had accrued the sort of power we enjoy today. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
The designers of our system gave all their attention to how we were going to work internally and gave little consideration to how we would interact with the world once we had accrued the sort of power we enjoy today. Blaming the founding fathers for bad policy decissions today? Pleeeeaaase. Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
Where did you get this hand-out stuff from? This thread was started about tariffs that the US imposes on other countries trading with them -- who's getting the hand-outs here? :rolleyes: As for, the US going around helping other nations -- we all know that's a load of crap as well. I'm sure the Vietnamese people hold a celebration every year to thank those benevolent Americans who came to help them. And so on, etc.... The current situation in Afganistan has roots in the Americans funding Osama in the Afghani war against Russia. Now look where they are. If the Americans had just kept their hands to themselves they would be better off, but no they can't do that. If that's what you think of as helping other countries -- I'll do without, thanks. X| "I've read the Bible through a couple of times and it is a nice collection of morality stories and adventure fiction. Sort of like Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer except without the laughs." -- Michael P Butler 14 Mar '02
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I'm sure the Vietnamese people hold a celebration every year to thank those benevolent Americans who came to help them. And so on, etc.... April 30th is "Liberation Day" (same as July 4th in the US) in Vietnam: it's the official day the tanks stormed through the (South Vietnamese) palace in Saigon (er... Ho Chi Minh City).. So yes, they do have a celebration every year (which i suppose you could say is to all those Americans who came to "help" them and only give them ~15 years of war). Wow.. History class is coming useful! :-D
-
Chris Losinger wrote: but what if the US suddenly went to war with japan, india and china - where would we get our steel from then? that's right, nowhere. we'd be screwed. So are you saying that free trade is ok in some industries but not others ? If that is the case then every country will have the right to decide what industries they apply free trade to ? The result will be chaos. Would you include every industry that was vital to war ? If you say yes , then I will challenge you to name an industry that could not be construed as vital to war. Globalisation means that the whole world is more important than ANY individual country. Regards Andrew Torrance You say the glass is half empty, I say that makes it your round.
Andrew Torrance wrote: Would you include every industry that was vital to war ? If you say yes , then I will challenge you to name an industry that could not be construed as vital to war. the production of stuffed animals would probably not be considered vital to war. Andrew Torrance wrote: So are you saying that free trade is ok in some industries but not others ? i'm not responsible for the US trade policy, so i don't hitnk it matters what i say. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse