Posted on 03/07/2002 11:27:12 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Just curious what kind of a jack@$$ would have so little regard for our national security.
Nevermind, I have it figured out.
You are that all right.
Bloody curious.
And your actions -- including your employment of the bullying tactics of a union thug; your personal attacks; your construction and use of straw men; your arrogant leaps of "logic" and your contemptuously presumptuous conclusion that anyone who disagrees with your flawed, erronious, subjective, insupportable and based-in-false-premises arguments is perforce "a jackass," are the same as those employed by another similarly dangerous dullard.
Your intellectual, moral and -- especially on your totalitarian-socialist's approach to this issue -- ideological twin.
Albert Gore Junior.
So we can keep our steel industry alive by requiring our military/military contractors to buy the higher-priced American steel, while allowing everybody else to use cheap foreign steel.
I've always thought it important to maintain capacity for industries that are vital in conducting war. Now brooms, VCRs, etc., that's a different story.
"It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead."-- Thomas Jefferson
Just as I figured. You cannot define these principles, and you cannot describe how our trading partners are adhering to them.
And for the record, I'm not a Bush-basher. I did not vote for him. Nevertheless, think he's done a fine job on a lot of things; not so well on some others. I think this tariff was only a half-way measure that will prove to be inneffective.
No, my point is that our trading partners do not use the same rules as we do, so much to the point that it's a different ballgame (pardon the mixed metaphors). To repeat myself, it's like asking the Arizona Diamondbacks to play a football game against the New England Patriots. The D-Backs are a terrific baseball team, but that's not the game they are playing. We, the US, need to force our trading partners to play the same game as we do.
Then, if they want an all-out trade war, I'll take US manufacturers over any and all any day of the week.
The problem with you is that you have given up on the US. You think (to continue my analogy) that since the Diamondbacks cannot beat the Patriots in a football game, that they should never be allowed to play baseball again. You think that since the US is losing to foreign competition that subsidizes employment, subsidizes industry losses, and illegally dumps their products, that Americans should not be allowed to compete in a fair marketplace, and that the competitors should not be held to the same competitive standards.
How unAmerican. Do you honestly doubt that US manufacturers, given a level playing field, cannot outperform all others? What a horrible, cyncial world you live in.
[Principles, by the way, are not subjectively "defined"]
I know they are not. I asked you what these principles are, not your interpretation of them, and how Japan, China, at alii are adhering to them. Obviously you cannot answer the question.
Wrong.
Try "will not."
And try to get a grip on this equally as important Truth: -- that all that descends in your diatribe FRom your wrong assumption -- and therefore false premise -- is every bit as false as is your point of departure -- and demonstrates that what you wanted to prove was nothing more nor less than your feigned and supercilious contempt for me -- and had nothing to do with the point of the thread.
My principled disagreement with the false premise upon which you based your original contention -- and my disdain for the and parsed language and phony, schoolyard bully quality of the tactics you employ in its defense of your position is not license for you to question any of my intelligence, patriotism or Moral Integrity.
Although, as I knew you would, you have presumed to give yourself license to do just that.
Cordially
Brian
-PATRIOT J. BUCHANAN
Very respectfully,
Wasn't it Owl Gore who pulled out a picture of Smoot and Hawley in defense of globalism on the Larry King Show?
To put it in simpler terms, both your and Owl Gore's economic policies mirror each other, right?
How right you are.
Bush 1 & Reagan NEVER agreed to the WTO concept.
This abomination came with Klinton's Uragray GATT round....
The only good that may come out of this, is that the unions will "probally" back the Republican this November. Can you imagine the Democrats without union backing ? They will be the party of peacenik traitors, minorities (who don't vote), fruits, and enviro-nuts. The unions were the only Democrats with any credibility.
I hope I'm right, because this tariff really sucks ...
http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/esel/reports/seo2001/report2001.html
It's a long report, so I will provide the pertinent sections (and you are right, according to this report, no European countries appearing to be subsidizing their steel industries). All italicized sections were italicized by me; this an excerpt, not an abridgement - nothing has been taken out:
1. Report to the President on Global Steel Trade
A major focus of subsidies enforcement activity during this past year has been our continued response to the 1998 steel crisis. As discussed in last year's report, the U.S. steel industry has experienced severe import competition since 1997 from several countries that aggressively targeted the strong U.S. market. The U.S. government responded quickly to the crisis, taking vigorous and forceful action to try to ensure that the U.S. steel industry and American steelworkers were not harmed by a flood of unfairly traded steel imports. One aspect of the government's response to this crisis was increased identification and surveillance of foreign subsidy and market distorting practices that may exacerbate trade frictions.
A key component of the Steel Action Program, announced in August 1999, was an examination of subsidies and market distorting trade barriers for steel and steel inputs in the major steel producing countries of Japan, Russia, Korea and Brazil, as well as countries that did not play a large part in the 1998 crisis, but may be of future concern, i.e., China, India and Ukraine. The SEO played a central role in conducting this extensive examination, and many additional personnel were temporarily added to this project to undertake this tremendous task. The report, released in July 2000, was the product of an intensive 10-month study looking into every major aspect of the steel crisis. The teams analyzed relevant economic data and consulted with U.S. steel producers, workers, and unions; foreign steel producers and their workers; foreign government and embassy officials; trading companies, steel service centers, and other steel consumers; and a wide array of industry experts.
The report illustrates how devastating the 1998 crisis was. In the latter half of 1998, the United States faced an unexpected surge in steel imports. Steel imports in 1998 rose dramatically, up 33 percent compared to 1997, previously the record year for steel imports. Average prices for steel products in the United States declined dramatically due to a 20 percent reduction in the price of imports in 1998. U.S. steel plants, which were operating at over 90 percent capacity in the first half of 1998, slowed to 75 percent by year-end. Ultimately, this surge in imports resulted in six U.S. companies going bankrupt and more than 6,600 steel workers losing their jobs.
The report attributes the causes of the 1998 steel crisis to a number of factors, including overcapacity in the world steel market, the Asian financial crisis, significant depreciation of certain currencies and long-term structural factors, e.g., government assistance, impediments to importing, noncompetitive market structures and unsound banking practices. The crisis was triggered by economic downturns abroad. The Asian financial crisis began with Thailand in mid-1997, and spread throughout Asia, bringing with it the worst economic downturn to hit the region in thirty years. As economies collapsed, demand for steel in Asia quickly dried up. Asian steel producers and traditional exporters to the region, such as Russia and Brazil, needed to find other markets and turned to the United States and Europe, where demand was strong. The situation was further exacerbated as the Asian financial crisis went global, spreading to Russia and Brazil by mid-1998.
One would have expected U.S. imports to increase as a result of these developments. Few, however, anticipated the magnitude of the increase in imports that took place in 1998. A large amount of steel was diverted to the United States from other markets. The largest increases came from Japan, Korea and Russia. Imports from these three countries alone accounted for 76 percent of the increase in total U.S. steel imports. However, the 1998 steel crisis was not simply one of increased volumes. Imported steel was coming in at extremely low prices in many instances, assisted by the declining value of foreign currencies that buoyed dollar-denominated export revenue in home currency units.
Because of the importance of the steel industry in many national economies, the marked tendency among all countries during an economic downturn or crisis is to preserve productive capacity in the hopes of saving jobs and maintaining economic stability and, thereby, forestalling adjustments mandated by the market. Market-distorting practices can spill over into the global marketplace during cyclical downturns by helping steel companies maintain or increase market share and productive capacity via the exporting of low priced steel. Such practices enabled the steel companies in the countries most involved in the 1998 crisis to set low prices for exports and avert downsizing adjustments dictated by the market. It should be noted that the steel report examined a wide-range of trade barriers, not all of which are subsidies.
Personal Note: Read, re-read, and then read again the above paragraph. Other countries act to protect their steel industries...why shouldn't the US?
Japan. Lax enforcement of antitrust laws is the primary market-distorting trade practice in Japan affecting the steel. Many steel industry experts note that a "cooperative system" exists among the major steel producers in Japan. Apparent coordination on production and other matters helps allow Japanese steel companies to charge high prices for their products in Japan. Because domestic supply needs to be controlled for such a system to work, import barriers are kept in place to keep import volumes to a minimum. Revenues from high priced home market sales can be used to sustain low priced exports, which give rise to concerns of unfair trade.
Russia. The report explains that perhaps the most significant long-term factor leading to the 1998 steel crisis has been the emergence of Russia as one of the world's top steel exporters. In the period before the crisis, the Russian steel industry was caught between two systems. A large steelmaking capacity built in Soviet times to meet domestic needs faced a domestic market in which demand had collapsed. Privatized companies continued to do business by bartering their products, often not paying their workers, suppliers or taxes, knowing that bankruptcy procedures rarely resulted in the closure of a company. In addition, state-controlled input suppliers continued the old command economy tradition of providing low priced inputs and transport to the steel industry. In this environment, there was a tendency for more steel to be produced than demand would otherwise dictate and for steel to be sold at prices not necessarily related to the cost of production. As a result, Russia experienced trade frictions with a number of countries, of which the United States is only the latest example.
Korea. The report illustrates that the financial difficulties of the Korean steel industry as a whole in the 1990s can be linked to excessive borrowing to fund over-investment in under-performing capacity. Massive new investments in steel during the 1990s were encouraged by unsound, often government-influenced, bank lending practices. A number of nonviable companies, which accounted for almost a quarter of domestic capacity, were kept in operation before and during the crisis, and continued to produce for domestic and export markets. The government also supported the development of Korea's largest steel producer – Pohang Iron and Steel Company (POSCO) – to the point that it has achieved a monopolistic position in the Korean steel market. As a government-owned company, POSCO was used by policymakers to further the government's industrial development objectives, which included providing low-cost steel to downstream producers. Additionally, POSCO's dominant position raises fundamental concerns about competition within the Korean steel market and possible trade effects that POSCO's continued dominance may have in the future.
Brazil. The report describes how the Brazilian steel industry, like Japan's steel industry, enjoys the advantages of a domestic market insulated from real market competition. In one instance, Brazilian antitrust authorities found evidence of cooperative pricing practices among Brazilian steel producers. These practices, in combination with extensive cross-ownership among Brazilian steel producers and various import barriers, reduce domestic competition and create conditions for producers to charge higher prices at home, the revenues from which can be used to sustain low priced exports.
Personal Note: Hell, the Brazilians are intentionally screwing their own domestic comsumers to capture a bigger chunk of the world steel market...
New Players: China, Ukraine and India. The report also looks at countries that did not play a large part in the 1998 crisis, but may play a significant role in global steel trade in the future. Although China is the world's largest steel producing nation, it faces problems exporting due to the low quality of its steel. Nevertheless, we will watch developments in the Chinese steel industry closely given the Chinese government's commitment to steel as a strategic industry. Ukraine is a significant producer of steel, currently exporting 60 percent of its finished steel output and with an even greater export potential. The Ukrainian government's continued involvement in most of Ukraine's steel companies raises a significant concern about the potential for unfairly traded steel in international markets. India's near-term export potential is substantial. The decline in domestic demand and active encouragement by the government has prompted Indian steel producers to turn increasingly to exports. As with Ukraine, there is concern about the possibility for unfairly traded exports because of extensive government involvement with Indian producers.
The report notes that certain of the traditional steel-supplying countries have recently taken some steps to address these structural problems. However, most of the problems still remain and may contribute to unfair trade in steel products in the future, much as they have in the past. The report concludes with recommendations on the most effective means to address the subsidies and market-distorting trade barriers. These recommendations include steps to address instability in the global steel markets, such as focused bilateral engagement with the major countries involved; faster relief for industries, workers and communities when import surges occur; early warning of import surges and of changes in industry conditions; and reinvigorating the international steel policy agenda. The steel industry continues to suffer from strong import competition and we will continue to vigorously enforce the trade laws to help ensure that this competition is fair.
The full report, Report to the President on Global Steel Trade, is available on the ITA home page at http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/x_newfram.html.
Just what part of:
"My principled disagreement with the false premise upon which you based your original contention -- and my disdain for the and parsed language and phony, schoolyard bully quality of the tactics you employ in its defense of your position is not license for you to question any of my intelligence, patriotism or Moral Integrity -- nor to put words in my mouth nor to ascribe to me that which I neither said nor implied!
"Although, as I knew you would, you have presumed to give yourself license to do just that."
Were you experiencing the most difficulty with, Ducky?
Cordially
Brian
PS: [Why, I've figgered it out! I'll bet you are Al Goreleone in drag. You are aren't you? Or his more dangerously-dullard trade-Luddite cousin!]
PPS: For your Ignorance of trade matters and for a bare understanding of Capitalism you might try Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and Milt Friedman's "FRee to Choose" and anything FRom the Chicago and/or Austrian Schools of Economics. For just a glimpse at where and what will be the inevitable consequences of your tax/tariff idiocy, you might try Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."
I'm glad you brought this up. I was going to anyway.
Adam Smith promotes four exceptions to "free trade":
"The first is, when some particlar sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country." I know you don't consider steel necessary for the defence of the country. DoD is anxious to hear your plan for manufacturing planes and tanks withut steel.
The second case, in which it will be generally advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign [imports] for the encouragement of domestic industry, is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal [tariff] should be imposed upon the like produce of the former." In other words, impose tariffs to protect domesic industry. Smith is suggesting tariffs to compensate for domestic tazes.
Smith's other instances to impose tariffs:
"Some foreign nation [may restrain] by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and ptohibition upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures..." Restated for you panty-wasted free traders...you can impose impose tariffs out of revenge.
Smith also advocated tariffs for "The recovery of a great foreign market...". He knew that the recovery of this market "...will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods". In other words, Brian, Adam Smith placed economic sovereignty over your ability to buy a cheaper widget. Since you brought him up, I can only assume you agree with him.
Smith was quite mercenary in his views, but he was very protectionist (i.e., pro-British). I have no problem adapting his views and recommendations for the US; some mercenary protectionist views would be terrific.
Thank you for mentioning Adam Smith. We are closer (you and I) in viewpoint than I had thought.
As an aside, I would recommend you also read Smith's "A Theory of Moral Sentiments", written twenty years before "A Wealth of Nations". You obviously gleaned much from "A Wealth of Nations."
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.