Skip to comments.A Protectionist Wave--Obama invites a rush of similar claims with his tariffs on Chinese tires
Posted on 09/12/2009 10:27:14 AM PDT by jazusamo
The White House leaked word late Friday evening that the U.S. will impose a 35% tariff on imported Chinese tires used by millions of low-income Americans. We wonder if President Obama understands the political forces he's unleashing with this blatant protectionism.
Mr. Obama is setting a precedent in the tire case because he is applying a previously unused part of the trade law known as Section 421. This allows U.S. industries or unions to seek protection from "surges" of Chinese imports, with a lower burden of proof than normal antidumping or countervailing duty cases. President Bush nixed the four Section 421 petitions that reached his desk, citing the national economic interest. Domestic lobbies had lobbied Mr. Obama hard to reverse that pattern and set a new protectionist precedent.
Eleven Senators, including Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), sent a letter to President Obama in July advocating the tariff on Chinese tires. "We firmly believe that providing this specific measure of relief would send a powerful message to the American people that you intend to keep your promise to enforce trade laws fully," they wrote.
Then there are companies that face competition from lower-cost Chinese imports and want to push their antitrade agenda forward. Take the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, which lobbed a pro-tariff letter into the White House this month. The umbrella group includes the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade; the California Fresh Garlic Producers Association; the U.S. Beekeepers; the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association; and the Flower Growers of Puget Sound. "This case is being watched closely to see whether Section 421 is an effective law or a dead issue,"committee executive director David A. Hartquist wrote to Mr. Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Ethanol is a stupid idea!
And if you REALLY looked into the ethanol issue, Not only would you find it is a superior fuel, cleaner, and in engines properly designed to burn ethanol, produces more HP and better fuel mileage.
Plus, more ethanol production = more ethanol plants, which means more GOOD jobs for Americans. Burning ethanol sustains those jobs, plus all the money stays in America. What can possibly be better than that?
More food, and more American jobs, and more money staying in America. Hmmm. can’t have that now can we...
No respectable enineer agrees with you.
Ethanol takes almost as much power to produce as it will ever create. It takes power to plant the corn, it takes power to fertilize the corn, it takes power and water to irrigate the corn, it takes power to harvest and transport the corn, it takes power to turn the corn into ethanol.
Nothing “NEW” Is produced, as far as power goes. We are trading one form of power, in the production of another form of power, GENERATING NO NEW ENERGY!
Plus, we’ve been paying corn producers billions in farm subsidies for years to NOT grow corn, to leave their land idle and collect taxpayers money, ie welfare to sit and watch their machinery rust.
What can be better than having a market for their crops, and reducing billions in corn farm subsidies?
I long to see the day when ALL farm subsidies are canceled, and people PAY for what it actually costs to grow crops/food crops or otherwise.
But of course people will whine like theirs no tomorrow when the taxpayers no longer have to pay for their food...
It was the fuel that drove machinery before oil, and itr will be again after the oil is gone.
It's not my fault however, that you've been fed and believe a bunch of horse crap about ethanol. Seems people believe what they want to when MSM prints up an article, instead of believing that everything they print is BS that has a political angle to it. And, instead of arguing with me about it, why don't you go look it up for yourself? The FACTS are out there, plain as day. Start here: http://www.ethanolproducer.com/
In truth, there AREN'T Any!
The oil industry has accounting rules crafted for it, that make perfect sense, in that an oil well will only go DOWN in value, not UP, as reserves are depleted.
Buildings and other hard assets are not like that!
The oil industry is able to “expense” the drilling costs, known as IDC or “Intangible Drilling Costs” and allocate them per individual ownership percentages, up front.
In the end, this gives the government MORE tax money, as many or most of these wells would NEVER GET DRILLED, otherwise!
When constructing a building, there is little or no risk that the building will not be completed.
When drilling a well, there is GREAT risk, that the well will not be productive.
There is also GREAT risk that, even if productive, the well will not be profitable.
It is best, and less complicated, to allow the losses to be taken up front, and allocated accordingly per share holders or partnership interests in the well.
The, there is the “depletion allowance” which, rightfully, understands that some of the money coming from the well is a “return of capital” and also recognizes that the production from the well will decline over time, even if it is productive.
So, again, tell me why these accounting rules do not make sense?
Of course, you can't.
The Oil industry does NOT get cash subsidies.
The Ethanol industry DOES get cash subsidies.
Strawman. Certainly we should trade. Real trade means we buy product from you and you buy product from us. Real trade does not mean we buy product from you and ship jobs, factories and treasuries in return. China has multiplied its economy while being an exporting nation, ours has diminished by being the importer.
Our country was at its highest when our economy was driven by the industrial engine. It's WW II triumph was as functioning as the arsenal of democracy. Reliance on the financials, shopping centers and 'information economy' to achieve the same heights as the production economy did is showing its results currently. We have to make more of what we buy. What works for the homeowner, works for the nation.
Let’s repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover. And FDR. Great.
Today we have Clinton-Bush.
Who gets the subsidy? Its not the farmer. I suspect it must be the distiller. The price the farmer gets depends upon the market on the day he sells the grain or possibly the futures. It has nothing at all to do with the cost of production. Today's price for corn is about a third of what it was at its high a little over a year ago.
The department of agriculture is predicting a record corn crop this year even with the adverse crop conditions in the eastern corn belt (one to two months late planting). If the record happens probably depends upon the date of the first frost.
The "agricultual problem" in the US has been that of over production ever since WW1. Ethanol production from corn may not be the best thing in the world to do, but it provides a market for a US produced product. Actually burning corn to heat your house is the lowest cost way to go even at last year's highs.
There is a difference between tariffs designed to raise federal revenue and tariffs designed to "protect" private industry.
If Chinese tires are effectively shut out of the US market, how can American consumers escape a rise in the price of tires?
Every time you buy a tire made more expensive by the limitation of Chinese-made tires, you the consumer are in essence being forced to subsidize private companies and their employees.
We’re getting Chinese honey now?
This is true. Go to web sites that sell a wide range of tires, and Korean tires can often be had at the same price. I'd trust the Korean tires more.
Better than what? Gasoline? That is not only incorrect, it is contrary to the laws of physics. There is more energy stored (per unit volume) in gasoline than in ethanol (~33 MJ/L vs. ~20 MJ/L). No matter how finely "tuned" your hypothetical ethanol engine, you will ALWAYS get more energy (and therefore more horsepower and miles per gallon) from a finely-tuned gasoline engine. Period.