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

To: nextthunder

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


48 posted on 04/01/2005 6:11:28 PM PST by zencat (The universe is not what it appears, nor is it something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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 ]

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