EU to slap extra 15% duty on range of US goods

dailytimes.com ^ | 04012005 | European Union

[Mase]

RE: Lou Dobbs and the 'exporting of America.'
_________________

Lou Dobbs is a bitter little fat man who got in on the tech boom a little too late and had to go back to CNN with his hat in hand. He is desperate for ratings and should, after reading your post, be working for the AFL-CIO.

Here's what Conservative William F. Buckley has to say about Lou Dobbs:

"President Bush is standing by free trade policies (however imperfectly we abide by them). It requires acts of faith in economic laws to applaud free trade. But Adam Smith was resoundingly correct in laying down the law that both parties benefit, giving us the benefit of exposure to Lou Dobbs, and the freedom to reject his counsel."

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200503021122.asp

More Buckley:

"The proposition hasn’t changed, that the difference between greed and husbandry has to do with the perspective of the critic. When a century ago we were shown the horseless carriage, we didn’t think to focus on the greed of Henry Ford; we chose, rather, to applaud his ingenuity."

Also from the article:

"Roderick Boyd in the New York Sun reports: “One intellectual opponent of Mr. Dobbs’s said he focuses on the costs of America’s free-market policies without even trying to communicate the benefits. ‘His reports are often unbalanced,’ said an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Daniel Mitchell. ‘They resolutely do not measure the fact that our job growth is driven by the free movement of capital and workers in America.’” Mr. Mitchell added, “There has never been an example in global history where protectionism worked, period.”


And if that's not enough, even John Stossel from ABC News called Dobbs out his economic ignorance and the mountain of misinformation he's created. Give me a break!

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0205/stossel.php3

[PhilipFreneau]

>> i'm strictly a free enterpriser and a free trader. and i get appalled when people rely on their governments to put in arbitrary tariffs and restrictions, to protect them when they are fundamentally uncompetitive

Free trader? That is code words for socialist -- a socialist with the ultimate goal of everyone being economically equal (everyone but the elites, of course). The simple-minded cannot see that what you really support is a destruction of America's way of life to enrich a few. It is similar to the doctrine of providing all children "equal" education by dumbing-down the smart children (again, the only ones enriched are the elites). Free trade is Marxist doctrine, supported by the early 19th century "progressives" (liberals), opposed by early 19th century republicans (conservatives), and opposed by true conservatives today.

[L_Von_Mises]

The EU subisizes AirBusted and I aint seen the WTO punish them. I call it anti-american bias.

A dumb deal on our part. We agreed to allow the subsidies of Airbus a long time ago. At the time it was not deemed a threat and they did not perceive Airbus ever catching up to Boeing.

[Mase]

"I'm totally confused. The neo-cons told us GATT and WTO would create an economic utopia, not a world where trade-wars are the norm"
==
I don't suppose you would have one source, quoting any Conservative, neo or otherwise, that GATT and WTO would create and 'economic utopia'?

[Mase]

Uhmm, have you looked at the EU/US trade imbalance ? It's about 4 to 1 in the EU's favor.
= =

And which economy would you rather be in - ours or theirs?

[oldtimer]

Microsoft, and American IT technology tells them to go pound sand?

[John Lenin]

Maybe instead of propping up the unsustainable they need a little tough love to quit using the US as a scapegoat for their own self created problems.

[Mase]

I asked you to defend your statitics and you failed. Sorry, but that means you are just interested in truely defending your argument.
______________

You have to marvel at how protectionists sell their argument:

Neb1961: I asked you to defend your statistics.
Other: Here are links to all the sources that back up my statements.

Neb1961: Not good enough!
Other: OK, here is additional statistical information, with links provided, that refutes your argument.

Neb1961: Your information is bogus. There's more to these numbers than meets the eye.
Other: Prove it.

Neb1961: I'm going to change the subject.

[hosepipe]

[ EU to slap extra 15% duty on range of US goods ]

Cool we can do that too...

[Mase]

Free trade is Marxist doctrine, supported by the early 19th century "progressives" (liberals), opposed by early 19th century republicans (conservatives), and opposed by true conservatives today.
_______________

William F. Buckley is a Marxist? I'm sure that would come as a big surprise to the man who led Conservatives out of the desert. I learn something new here everyday.

[AndyJackson]

Byrd Amendment? This Byrd?

I am not sure why we are falling on our swords to start a trade war in order to salvage something stuck in by Byrd in the dark of the night.

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Source? I followed the arguments quite closely back in 1993-96. I remember all the empty promises the FT's made. Do you? Or do you wish to down-play their promises?

[L_Von_Mises]

If our trade figures have dramatically increased, where are the jobs

We are producing almost twice as much now than we did in 1990 with fewer employees. This is the result of significant productivity gains.

Below is a table showing the amount of actual durable goods manufacturing in the US indexed so 2000 = 100. These are not final shipment numbers, but are the value added to the final shipments. Intermediate inputs are not included. I also show employment numbers which I indexed so 2000 = 100 so they can be directly compared to the value added index.

Durable Goods Employment and Value-Added Indices
2000 = 100
	Value Added Quantity Index	Full-Time Equivalent Employees
	Durable goods	Durable goods
1977	36.8	106.9
1978	39.3	113.3
1979	40.0	117.7
1980	38.3	112.2
1981	39.6	111.6
1982	36.0	101.3
1983	38.0	98.6
1984	44.2	106.1
1985	45.2	105.7
1986	44.7	103.2
1987	48.6	102.6
1988	53.3	104.9
1989	53.4	104.9
1990	52.4	102.2
1991	50.6	97.2
1992	52.5	94.6
1993	54.7	94.1
1994	60.1	96.6
1995	65.3	98.6
1996	69.3	99.6
1997	76.3	101.5
1998	84.4	100.6
1999	89.6	99.9
2000	100.0	100.0
2001	94.0	95.1
2002	95.3	87.4
2003	101.1	82.7
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Why do we constantly read of our manufacturing industries laying off people and we hardly ever read of hirings?

Again, I refer to the above table. We are doing more with less.

Regarding the Dow - there was a 200 percent increase from 1994 - 1999 followed by a correction that bottomed out at 7,286 in 2002. Since then the Dow has risen over 40 percent. That's a 40 percent return in a little over two years.

Finally, real GDP growth was 1.9 percent in 2002, 3.0 percent in 2003, and 4.4 percent in 2004. Seems like a steady improvement to me.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent summation!!

[1rudeboy]

Ah, yes. The "I remember something so vividly from a decade
ago that I need not convince you" argument.
Brilliant!

[CanadianBacon]

Under your definition, someone who believes in a minimalist government, free trade, and actively is trying to get ahead of you economically is a socialist (and heavens alive a Marxist). I support free trade because it makes everyone better off and I would put it that the simple-minded cannot get their minds around this.

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

So Rudeboy...
I asked a few questions yet didn't get any answers. Care to answer them? Where is all that economic utopia that the FT's were droning on and on about? I see lots of huge trade growth figures, yet very little high paying jobs coming into the nation. Where is all the industrial jobs? Where is the enormous economic growth figures? And dont' give me the figures from the Clinton era which we now know were not legitimate.

[1rudeboy]

Let's review your questions to me. You wrote:

Well would you care to explain this contradiction then? I mean the FT's promised utopia in trade and economics yet it has not appeared to have played out that way. Oil's closer to $60 a barrel and has plenty of upside left. This is because of a cartel. Isn't the whole idea of a cartel against free trade? If it is, why doesn't the US Govt. take OPEC to the WTO? Hmmmm??? Oil at $50 a barrel is not good for the economy yet there appears to be no free-trade mechanism at work to correct the power of the cartel. Sign me confused at trying to figure out all the promises that were made in the '90s. When will that uptopia they promised get here? Or is it here and no one knows it?

The only time I've seen the term "utopia" used in any dialogue about economics is in discussions of Marxist theory, although I'm not sure if he or Engels actually used the term. Your insistence that your "opponents" on this thread (and others) respond to an argument that is a product of your own imagination, i.e., "where is the utopia I was promised?" is an almost textbook example of the strawman fallacy.

Oil is a commodity. Commodity prices rise and fall due to variations in supply and demand. The notion that prices can or will only go down as the result of any trade agreement is not only another strawman, but as a notion, is particularly puerile. The U.S. has not brought action against OPEC at the WTO because not all OPEC countries, including the one most capable of affecting oil prices--Saudi Arabia, are members of the WTO. I'll repeat: Saudi Arabia is not a member of the WTO. Your failure, until now, to grasp this simple fact makes me wonder what other fundamentals of global politics and economics you do not comprehend.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your failure, until now, to grasp this simple fact makes me wonder what other fundamentals of global politics and economics you do not comprehend.

That'd be all of them.

[nextthunder]

U.S. Warns EU on China Arms Embargo

Sun Apr 3,12:10 PM ET Business - Reuters


By Patrick McLoughlin

RIGA (Reuters) - U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said if the European Union ended a ban on selling arms to China it would affect its transatlantic defense trade with the United States.

EU leaders have repeatedly voiced support for lifting the embargo, which was imposed after the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. But the European bloc wants to ensure its U.S. interests would not be hit by the move.


"It would certainly affect our transatlantic defense trade because the types of arrangements that we have had with defense firms in Europe would be upset," Zoellick said in Latvia during an official visit to the Baltic state.


Several countries, especially the United States and Britain, have been critical of the plan to lift the arms embargo, notably in the light of rising Chinese tensions with Taiwan.


Zoellick did not mention specifics but a number of British firms have bought U.S. companies, including BAE Systems. U.S. groups including General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin also have investments in the British defense sector.


"I think some of the opportunities and the integration that we have seen develop would be inhibited by this," Zoellick said.


Zoellick's remarks follow comments from French President Jacques Chirac quoted on China's official Xinhua news agency.


Chirac told President Hu Jintao by telephone the embargo was outdated and should be revoked, the agency said Friday.


Hu said the embargo had become increasingly inappropriate and that lifting it would help promote relations between China and the European Union, the report said.


German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told a German newspaper last week that he was determined to relax the EU's arms embargo against China despite possible opposition from parliament.


"We think that a move to lift the arms embargo would be a mistake," Zoellick said. "For some of us, like myself coming out of the trade industry who have worked hard to create additional opportunities, this would not be a positive move."


Last month, Chirac said EU countries would not start selling weapons to China if they lifted the embargo and his support for lifting the ban was aimed at normalizing relations with China.