Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EU to slap extra 15% duty on range of US goods
dailytimes.com ^ | 04012005 | European Union

Posted on 04/01/2005 4:02:14 PM PST by nextthunder

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
To: nextthunder
Byrd Amendment? This Byrd?


51 posted on 04/01/2005 6:16:20 PM PST by Shadrak ("All men having power ought to be mistrusted." James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Uhmm, have you looked at the EU/US trade imbalance ? It's about 4 to 1 in the EU's favor. Let the Arabs prop up their socialism, Im gettin tired of it.


52 posted on 04/01/2005 6:24:35 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

So you have a problem with us buying BMW's? And you want to take your frustration out on somebody working at Caterpillar? Doesn't sound like much of a plan.


53 posted on 04/01/2005 6:26:59 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Screw the EU, China is where it's at. The EU will implode on itself in the next 10 years. We are headed in the same direction.


54 posted on 04/01/2005 6:28:36 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: nextthunder
Both Canada and the EU have long asked Washington to repeal the Byrd amendment.

In November, the WTO gave Canada and the other co-complainants the authority to retaliate. The other countries involved include Mexico, Japan, India and Brazil.

Unless Congress repeals the law, the case may become the most damaging ever at the WTO when the U.S. begins distributing tariffs collected on Canadian lumber, worth $4 billion a year. Japan, the economy most affected by the Byrd Amendment, has the right to impose customs duties worth 125 billion yen ($116 million), the biggest sanctions awarded to Japan in a dispute.

President George W. Bush called for a repeal of the Byrd Amendment in his budget proposal to Congress on Feb. 7, saying that ending the law could save the U.S. Treasury $1.6 billion in the next fiscal year.

------------

So, unless the Byrd amendment is repealed, many nations, not just the EU, will be retaliating. It would be prudent not to irritate the Japanese, with their vast holdings of US Treasuries - which they can dump any time they please. The posted article states that President Bush is in favor of repeal. Sounds like prompt action is needed - unless he wants to get into a trade war against the whole world --- at the conclusion of which we are likely to be even more a beggar nation than we are now - and finally shocked into seeing it.

Is repeal legislation before Congress now?

55 posted on 04/01/2005 6:52:06 PM PST by Prod Convert ( To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths of all the western stars, until I die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Trade war!!! Bring it on!

I already have 3 coffee machines, ain't got any more use for any more euro junk!


56 posted on 04/01/2005 6:55:30 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Happygal

"But our economy is one of the strongest in Europe. Mainly due to free market initiatives and a pro-inward investment policies. "

And those are probably initiatives from within the Irish Republic. Which is good! The bureaucrats in Brussels though I don't trust, my perception from this side of the pond is that they are a bit "out of touch".

As far as the objecting to the EU in its present bloated bureaucrat form being a crime, that I believe is in closer proximity to Belgium, France, what have you. My view that the EU will have major problems is not on "nationalist" grounds (since I'm an outsider in the U.S.A.), but more economic grounds - hence my screen name.

Barring over-regualation, Ireland and the Eastern European member nations should do quite well. Its up to Germany, France, Belgium, and the rest of "Old Europe" whether or not they get left behind. Germany during the last years of Helmut Kohl's administration almost had the opportunity to kick start their economy if the upper legislative house passed a major tax cut and spending reduction almost on the scale that Reagan pursued.


57 posted on 04/01/2005 7:01:18 PM PST by Fred Hayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You ain't seen nothing yet, just wait until they find that the largest buyer of their exports just closed our doors to them.

Any professional economist will tell you that if the EU puts a 15% tariff on US goods, it has the same exact effect as if the US put a 15% tariff on EU goods.

I'm not sure you knew that economics backs you up, but it does!

58 posted on 04/01/2005 7:14:08 PM PST by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CanadianBacon

The basic problem is that the WTO does not appear to be a neutral, objective organization. Almost every time it lays down a judgment, the U.S. seems to get the short end of the stick.

We put up with that sort of unbalanced trade agreements for decades, but we can no longer afford to do so. Indeed it was foolish of us ever to agree to it, because it established unfair practices and bad habits.


59 posted on 04/01/2005 7:18:03 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nextthunder

Hey Europe, remember what Hawley-Smoot did to the American economy....


60 posted on 04/01/2005 7:34:35 PM PST by struggle ((The struggle continues))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nextthunder
The duty would hit imports... and affect slightly less than $28 million in trade, the European Commission said.

Hold it a second... you mean, these Bozos are threatening us with a tariff that could reach $28 Million??. Oh, man, let me check the petty cash drawer...

61 posted on 04/01/2005 7:44:25 PM PST by Starve The Beast (I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961

The neo-cons told us GATT and WTO would create an economic utopia, not a world where trade-wars are the norm.
======
Remember that little nutty guy from Texas, Ross WhatsHisName....who WARNED US OF THE "GIANT SUCKING SOUND"...well if he had been elected President, we would not be having the trade wars now....and for the first time, this country would have been RUN LIKE A BUSINESS, certainly moreso than it is now. Presently, all we are is the money-source and dumping ground for the world...and the trade deficit proves it.


62 posted on 04/01/2005 7:47:34 PM PST by EagleUSA (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: zencat
Yes, this sucks but. . . " affect slightly less than $28 million in trade". That's negligible compared to our overall trade.

Yes, when considered as part of all our international trade it is small. But it is targeted at very specific products which means it has a very large impact on those specific industries making those products.

The industry I work in has been significantly impacted by this.

The Byrd amendment, while it's intent was good, was not put together with much foresight (under Clinton) IMHO and is perceived as a subsidy by the WTO. They apparently had no issue with the fines for dumping but they felt that giving the money collected as fines to those companies affected was a subsidy. If the money went to the communities or to the workers it may have been alright.

I was under the impression that the US had gone back to the drawing board to come up with something that achieved the same results but would not be perceived as a subsidy. Apparently that did not happen. This is not good.

A good overview of the issue can be found here

63 posted on 04/01/2005 8:56:01 PM PST by L_Von_Mises
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Prod Convert
Is repeal legislation before Congress now?

My understanding is that the Senate will not repeal it. They need to redirect the money collected from the fines away from the companies to some other entity to get the WTO to approve it. A compromise bill was put up by Olympia Snowe but has little or no support.

64 posted on 04/01/2005 9:02:32 PM PST by L_Von_Mises
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Check it out. Another "expert" chimes in, undoubtedly chagrined that that he cannot find domestic beer in the import section. In other news, NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961 is confused. Again.

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?

65 posted on 04/01/2005 9:17:16 PM PST by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Solamente; 1rudeboy; NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
Uh, are there any goods made in the US anymore?

No. And we don't export anything either.

U.S. exports $714.5 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) CIA World Fact Book

Japan exports $447.1 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) CIA World Fact Book

Germany exports $696.9 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) CIA World Fact Book

China exports $436.1 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) CIA World Fact Book

Hmmmm, imagine my surprise. Not only do we still make and export stuff, we're the largest exporter in the world.

66 posted on 04/01/2005 9:19:11 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Maybe it's not the Alinsky Method. Maybe you appear ridiculous because you are ridiculous!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
"Certainly not NAFTA and GATT since they are unconstitutional treaties (the constitution requires supermajority approval by the Senate for treaty ratificaation)."

Ahh Philip, you miss the point NAFTA and GATT are not treaties, they are "agreements" you see if you call it an agreement you don't have to have a supermajority, which would have been nigh onto impossible to get. I did learn something from the Klintoons.

67 posted on 04/01/2005 9:24:42 PM PST by DaiHuy (Jesus is Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaiHuy

>> Ahh Philip, you miss the point NAFTA and GATT are not treaties, they are "agreements" you see if you call it an agreement you don't have to have a supermajority, which would have been nigh onto impossible to get.

Unbelievable! I thought I was the only one outside of government who understood that point. Maybe there is hope for our nation after all. God Bless!


68 posted on 04/01/2005 9:29:09 PM PST by PhilipFreneau (Congress is defined as the United States Senate and House of Representatives; now read 1st Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau

whether you think there was "authority" to sign the agreements, the president signed and he certainly has authority that the other countries rely on


69 posted on 04/01/2005 10:05:56 PM PST by CanadianBacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Southack

most of those limits are company specific and are disappearing. There are almost no limits on foreign purchases of Canadian companies now.


70 posted on 04/01/2005 10:11:19 PM PST by CanadianBacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rasblue

Quote: China makes comsumer crap. Ask any engineer what they would do if trade with the EU in for instance machine tools were to be halted. Chaos

China just bought one of the premier and oldest machine tools company in Germany and are on a worldwide hunt to buy many more.


71 posted on 04/01/2005 10:14:40 PM PST by superiorslots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Well, take out the fudging in these numbers and the "paperwork" like the lawyers what does this mean? Average working Joe is once again on the short end of the stick.

Nice try though. Just put up a bunch of figures! Tell me, how much of those numbers is cars and durable goods being exported? Hmmmmm????? Didn't think so.

72 posted on 04/01/2005 10:15:28 PM PST by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961

I saw a true non BS chart of our exports from 2000- to 2004. Yes exports are up slightly since 2000. However they are up in 2 main areas which saved the day, agriculture (mostly lower paying jobs) and pharmecuticals.

Almost every other sector was down including computers, telecommuniactions, Hi-tech machine tools etc Basically alot of the higher paying manufacturing jobs.

There were some other manufactured goods that were up but for the most part they were down as a averge in this category.


73 posted on 04/01/2005 10:25:12 PM PST by superiorslots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Excellent! Bring on the trade war!

But this is Free Trade, so is this the first Free Trade War ?

74 posted on 04/01/2005 10:41:45 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nextthunder
"... the U.S. not living up to their end of the deals signed. But we do live up to our word on trade and we expect the U.S. to do likewise." CanadianBacon

"Canada signed the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, which limited exports to the United States from British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario..."

" the agreement has been hard to enforce. Denny Scott, assistant director of the Portland-headquartered Western Council of Industrial Workers, a division of the Carpenters Union, said Canadian lumber companies have circumvented the agreement by calling lumber something else, such as "truss parts" or "pre-manufactured studs for electrical conduits." "They would put a notch in them and call them 'rafters,'" Scott said."

U.S. sawmill jobs at stake in battle over Canadian lumber

75 posted on 04/01/2005 10:47:06 PM PST by Daaave ( I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
Nice try though. Just put up a bunch of figures! Tell me, how much of those numbers is cars and durable goods being exported?

Gee, Neb, why don't you tell me how much is cars and durable goods. And then tell me why cars and durable goods, whether a large or small number, would change the fact that we're the largest exporter in the world.

And please, just put up a bunch of figures. With links, if you don't mind. Try not to make numbers up like your buddy superiorslots.

76 posted on 04/01/2005 10:54:49 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Maybe it's not the Alinsky Method. Maybe you appear ridiculous because you are ridiculous!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: djf
Trade war!!! Bring it on!

I already have 3 coffee machines, ain't got any more use for any more euro junk!

But will you have coffee?

Think about it...

77 posted on 04/02/2005 12:24:26 AM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: CanadianBacon
"There are almost no limits on foreign purchases of Canadian companies now."

I hold stock in at least 3 canroys, BPT, PVX, and PWI. They each claim that if their total non-Canadian stock ownership percentage goes above 48%, that they will sell your foreign stock shares for you to a Canadian buyer, with no choice for you as a U.S. citizen. Otherwise, they lose their rights to being incorporated as Canadian firms.

If that's changed, then it has been recent.

78 posted on 04/02/2005 1:19:20 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
Tell me, how much of those numbers is cars and durable goods being exported?

Tell me, you don't know? Shouldn't you try to gather some facts before forming an opinion? I can direct you to the numbers if you are truly interested, which I doubt.

79 posted on 04/02/2005 4:53:39 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I asked you to defend your statitics and you failed. Sorry, but that means you are just interested in truely defending your argument. Move on young man and bother someone else.


80 posted on 04/02/2005 8:26:51 AM PST by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961; 1rudeboy
I asked you to defend your statitics and you failed.

See rude, I provided statistics that are pretty straight forward. The United States is the largest exporter in the world. Nebbie can't refute it so he throws in a question about cars. Are car exports good or bad? He doesn't say. He offers no statistics of his own so I don't know why he even bothers to post a response.

81 posted on 04/02/2005 9:30:02 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Maybe it's not the Alinsky Method. Maybe you appear ridiculous because you are ridiculous!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
how much of those numbers is cars and durable goods being exported?

Just over two-thirds of all our exports are durable goods and over 40 percent are capital goods.

The following table shows the figures in real terms.

Real Annual Exports            
             
  Exports of goods and services Exports of goods Durable industrial goods Capital goods, except automotive Automotive vehicles, engines, and parts Durable consumer goods All durables
1990 552.5 367.2 38.6 112.8 40.3 25.4 217.1
1991 589.1 392.5 40.5 123.3 43.2 25.6 232.6
1992 629.7 421.9 39.5 135.2 49.8 27.4 251.9
1993 650 435.6 38 144 54.3 29.3 265.6
1994 706.5 478 40.2 166.1 60.1 31.4 297.8
1995 778.2 533.9 45.4 197.9 63.4 33.4 340.1
1996 843.4 581.1 48 229.3 65.8 36.1 379.2
1997 943.7 664.5 52.4 281.2 74.4 40.4 448.4
1998 966.5 679.4 53.2 293.2 73.4 41.6 461.4
1999 1008.2 705.2 55.2 309.3 75.9 42.2 482.6
2000 1096.3 784.3 63.6 357 80.4 46.7 547.7
2001 1036.7 736.3 58.1 321.9 75.2 46.3 501.5
2002 1012.3 706.4 54.4 294 78.3 44 470.7
2003 1031.8 721.7 55.8 300.6 79.4 45.9 481.7
2004 1120.3 785.5 58.1 339 86.3 53.3 536.7
             
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis          

 

Exorts of Durables As A Percentage of All Exports    
         
  All Durables / All Goods Durable industrial goods / All goods Capital goods, except automotive / All goods Automotive vehicles, engines, and parts / All goods Durable consumer goods / All goods
1967 53.7% 11.5% 30.7% 8.7% 2.8%
1968 56.1% 11.9% 31.4% 9.9% 2.8%
1969 58.0% 12.3% 32.4% 10.2% 3.1%
1970 57.1% 12.6% 33.0% 8.8% 2.7%
1971 56.4% 9.4% 33.8% 10.3% 2.9%
1972 55.6% 9.1% 32.6% 10.6% 3.3%
1973 52.5% 10.0% 29.8% 9.5% 3.2%
1974 52.8% 10.2% 30.6% 8.7% 3.3%
1975 54.9% 8.9% 33.4% 9.9% 2.8%
1976 55.7% 8.7% 33.2% 10.4% 3.4%
1977 54.8% 8.3% 32.2% 10.9% 3.4%
1978 56.2% 9.0% 32.7% 10.5% 4.1%
1979 56.5% 10.1% 32.7% 9.7% 4.0%
1980 56.8% 11.0% 33.8% 7.7% 4.3%
1981 55.9% 8.7% 35.2% 8.2% 3.8%
1982 55.4% 8.2% 35.6% 8.0% 3.6%
1983 55.0% 8.2% 34.6% 8.9% 3.3%
1984 54.9% 7.8% 34.1% 9.9% 3.0%
1985 57.4% 7.6% 35.7% 11.2% 2.9%
1986 58.9% 7.8% 36.6% 11.1% 3.4%
1987 58.6% 8.2% 36.0% 10.7% 3.7%
1988 59.7% 8.8% 36.6% 10.3% 4.1%
1989 60.9% 9.0% 37.1% 9.5% 5.3%
1990 62.7% 9.0% 38.6% 9.1% 6.0%
1991 63.3% 8.8% 39.3% 9.4% 5.8%
1992 64.0% 8.2% 39.4% 10.4% 5.9%
1993 65.3% 8.2% 39.8% 11.2% 6.2%
1994 65.7% 8.1% 40.3% 11.2% 6.0%
1995 64.9% 8.6% 40.2% 10.5% 5.6%
1996 65.5% 8.2% 41.1% 10.4% 5.8%
1997 67.6% 8.0% 43.0% 10.7% 5.9%
1998 68.7% 7.9% 44.0% 10.6% 6.1%
1999 69.2% 7.8% 44.6% 10.8% 6.0%
2000 69.8% 8.1% 45.5% 10.3% 6.0%
2001 68.5% 7.8% 44.0% 10.3% 6.3%
2002 67.0% 7.7% 41.7% 11.3% 6.3%
2003 65.8% 7.9% 40.4% 11.1% 6.3%
2004 65.8% 8.2% 40.3% 10.8% 6.5%
         
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis      

82 posted on 04/02/2005 9:45:30 AM PST by L_Von_Mises
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: nextthunder

The proper response is to enforce the exact same tariffs against their goods. That is only fair!


83 posted on 04/02/2005 9:56:15 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
. . . I provided statistics that are pretty straight forward.

May I ask where? Maybe you were posting under another name?

84 posted on 04/02/2005 10:06:52 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: L_Von_Mises

Thank you for posting those numbers.

This all begs the question though. If our trade figures have dramatically increased, where are the jobs? Where is the DOW 13,000? Where is the staggering GDP numbers? Why do we constantly read of our manufacturing industries laying off people and we hardly ever read of hirings?

I suspect that there is more to these numbers than meets the eye. Example, many textile products are actually made in Mexico or the Caribbean and when they come across the border some cosmetic changes are made to these products thuse allowing the manufacturer to put the lable "Made in USA" on the tag. Also, many raw materials are exported to third world nations like China or Japan, are converted into consumer products and sent to the US.

There are more to these numbers then just what you posted.


85 posted on 04/02/2005 10:12:06 AM PST by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Gosh, this is so easy. I'm bored.

_____

U.S. goods exports increased by 13 percent in 2004, as compared to the 5 percent increase in the preceding year (table 1) [portion posted below]. Manufacturing exports, which account for 87 percent of total goods exports, were up 13 percent, while agriculture exports, which account for 8 percent of total goods exports, were up by 4 percent. High technology exports, a subset of manufacturing exports, accounted for 25 percent of total goods exports and were up 12 percent in 2004. U.S. goods exports increased for every major end-use category in 2004, with the largest increase in the industrial supplies and materials category, up 17 percent.

Since 1994, U.S. goods exports are up 60 percent. Manufacturing exports increased 64 percent, while high technology exports increased 67 percent, and agriculture exports increased 39 percent. Exports of consumer goods have risen by 70 percent, while industrial supplies and materials and capital goods have increased by more than 60 percent. Of the $304 billion increase in goods exports since 1994, capital goods accounted for 42 percent of the increase, industrial supplies and materials accounted for 27 percent, and consumer goods accounted for 14 percent.

Percentage increase in goods exports 1994-2004*
Industrial supplies and materials: +66.4%
Capital goods, except autos: +61.2%
Autos and auto parts: +52.1%

Total exports by category* (in billions of dollars)
Industrial supplies and materials: 202.0
Capital goods, except autos: 330.6
Autos and auto parts: 87.8

*Annualized based on January-November 2004 data.

_____
Even under the most restrictive definition of "durable goods" that I can imagine, figure that we export between $400 and $500 billion worth of "cars and durable goods" per year. Does that answer your question in reply #72? Let me know if you come-up with any "statistics" that suggest otherwise.

Source: 2005 Trade Policy Agenda and 2004 Annual Report, Annex I: U.S. Trade in 2003.

86 posted on 04/02/2005 10:28:15 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
Example, many textile products are actually made in Mexico or the Caribbean and when they come across the border some cosmetic changes are made to these products thuse allowing the manufacturer to put the lable "Made in USA" on the tag.

Textiles are not a durable good, and the U.S. does not determine whether a product is manufactured here according to what someone claims on a label.

87 posted on 04/02/2005 10:31:57 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
With the extra duties and the new RoHS regulations going into efect in 2006; I wonder of some companies will just stop selling into the EU. Better of selling goods in Asia.

I doubt it. The EU is a big enough market that they're basically forcing everybody to do RoHS. Component manufacturers aren't gonna keep two different production processes going (leaded vs. unleaded!). And some states here like Cali and Maine are in the process of implementing similar protocols, so it'll likely happen here in the States too before long. So it's likely to be a worldwide thing.

IIRC, telecoms and mil-spec components are exempt, since it would prove too "disruptive" to change them over to the RoHS standard. Hmm.......

88 posted on 04/02/2005 10:48:19 AM PST by adx (Why's it called "tourist season" if you ain't allowed to shoot 'em?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Textiles are not a durable good, and the U.S. does not determine whether a product is manufactured here according to what someone claims on a label.

Further elaboration is needed. If 50% of the cost of a product is done in the US then it can claim the "Made in the USA" lable. Belive me, there are many trick and importers engage in to earn that lable, when in fact the vast majority of the work is done outside of the USA.

89 posted on 04/02/2005 11:07:06 AM PST by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: TheHound
The Byrd amendment allows American companies to keep the proceeds that Washington collects in anti-dumping disputes, something Canada and other countries complain unfairly enriches their U.S. rival firms.

That is the part I don't understand. What should we do with the duties we have collected in anti-dumping disputes ? It only makes sense to give it to the injured U. S. firm. It seems to me that we are only making the injured party whole again.

90 posted on 04/02/2005 11:22:32 AM PST by oldbrowser (What really matters is culture, ethos, character, and morality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
What does a Made in USA label have to do with American exports of durable goods?
91 posted on 04/02/2005 12:35:44 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Maybe it's not the Alinsky Method. Maybe you appear ridiculous because you are ridiculous!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CanadianBacon

>> whether you think there was "authority" to sign the agreements, the president signed and he certainly has authority that the other countries rely on

You really don't get it, do you? The President has been given authority by the people to ignore unconstitutional legislation, but not to enforce it. BTW, are you a socialist?


92 posted on 04/02/2005 1:38:45 PM PST by PhilipFreneau (Congress is defined as the United States Senate and House of Representatives; now read 1st Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Many goods which are really imports are put into the catagory of exports. Example, we export the cotton to Mexico and the shirts/pants, etc. are made from that cotton. The apparels are then exported to the United States. The problem is that since these goods have some final assmbly here in the US it never went down as a import from Mexico in the first place.


93 posted on 04/02/2005 1:50:43 PM PST by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
Example, we export the cotton to Mexico and the shirts/pants, etc. are made from that cotton. The apparels are then exported to the United States.

What does the import or export of cotton and apparel have to do with US exports of durable goods?

94 posted on 04/02/2005 2:50:45 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Maybe it's not the Alinsky Method. Maybe you appear ridiculous because you are ridiculous!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

bump


95 posted on 04/02/2005 4:18:01 PM PST by nextthunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: nextthunder

The EU can kiss my wookie! If they think their stupid little sanctions will hurt us they have not seen nothing yet. If they go through with lifting the arms embargo against China, our sanctions will hit them and especially their military so hard that they will WISH they went back to 10% unemployment!


96 posted on 04/02/2005 6:21:47 PM PST by Paul_Denton (The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CanadianBacon
The issue here is that the Byrd Amendment, and some other unilateral actions, have the U.S. not living up to their end of the deals signed. If the Europeans aren't living up to their end, slap trade sanctions on them too. If we in Canada aren't, do the same to us. But we do live up to our word on trade and we expect the U.S. to do likewise.

Screw the Peoples Republic of EU! They want to side with China then they do not deserve any submission on our part.

97 posted on 04/02/2005 6:24:05 PM PST by Paul_Denton (The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: L_Von_Mises
and is perceived as a subsidy by the WTO.

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

98 posted on 04/02/2005 6:33:22 PM PST by Paul_Denton (The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau

i am anything but a socialist. 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.


99 posted on 04/02/2005 7:19:56 PM PST by CanadianBacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

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

Looks like the EU is afraid of the WTO's involvement in this issue. The US believes that the WTO is the appropriate forum to resolve the dispute. From the article:

"We strongly disagree with the assertion that the WTO is not an appropriate forum to resolve the dispute. The Airbus-Boeing dispute is precisely what the WTO was created to handle," said Richard Mills, a spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office. "The core issue remains the same - is the EU willing to end launch aid subsidies and allow Airbus and Boeing to compete on normal commercial terms."

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8065021

The WTO, IMO, has been pretty effective since its inception and I have yet to read anything that shows any anti-American bias.
100 posted on 04/02/2005 7:19:57 PM PST by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson