worthy wrote:....Just like when I spend money at the supermarket, giving them my money while I get nothing but food and drink in return!
worthy wrote:Ah, yes, the hell with economics. It's a war for the Homeland. Nationalism over consumerism. International trade is a fraud. (In fact, I'm not too sure about inter-city trade either.) Sneaky, slitty-eyed Nips, Chinks (and 905ers, for that matter) fooling us all with their lousy merchandise made with slave labour. Until all the world is the same, I'm waving the Raccoon City rag forever and paying through the nose. It's the way to true wealth.
Raccooon City Über Alles
I was an angry young man
That I was a billboard
By the side of the road
I fell in love
With a beautiful highway
This used to be real estate
Now it's only fields and trees
Where, where is the town
Now, it's nothing but flowers
The highways and cars
Were sacrificed for agriculture
I thought that we'd start over
But I guess I was wrong
The smell of trade war is suddenly in the air. Mr. Obama slapped a 35% tariff on Chinese tires Friday night, and China responded on the weekend by threatening to retaliate against U.S. chickens and auto parts. .....
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who has endorsed a carbon tax on imports, and the U.S. House of Representatives, which passed a carbon tariff as part of its cap-and-tax bill. This in turn followed the "Buy American" provisions of the stimulus, which has incensed much of Canada; Congress's bill to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. roads in direct violation of Nafta, prompting Mexico to retaliate against U.S. farm and kitchen goods; and the must-make-cars-in-America provisions of the auto bailouts. Meanwhile, U.S. trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea languish in Congress.
Through all of this Mr. Obama has either said nothing or objected so feebly that Congress has assumed he doesn't mean it. Despite his pro-forma demurrals, Mr. Obama's actions and nonactions are telling the world that the U.S. is abandoning the global leadership on trade that Presidents of both parties have worked to maintain since the 1930s. His advisers whisper that their man is merely playing a little tactical domestic politics, but he is playing with fire, as the last 80 years of trade history should tell him.
President Barack Obama swept into union country to rally organized labor behind his push to overhaul the health-care system, with campaign-style speeches in Ohio and at an AFL-CIO convention here urging workers to get behind him.
Outgoing AFL-CIO President John Sweeney hailed Mr. Obama's decision Friday night to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese car and light-truck tires.
China is threatening to cut off imports of American chicken, but poultry experts have at least one reason to suspect it may be an empty threat: Many Chinese consumers would miss the scrumptious chicken feet they get from this country.
“We have these jumbo, juicy paws the Chinese really love,” said Paul W. Aho, a poultry economist and consultant, “so I don’t think they are going to cut us off.”
“If we are playing a game of chicken with China we are going to be big losers.”
WishingWealth wrote:I don't care a rodent's rectum* that the TD is + $1Trillion or minus $1 trillion.
from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debateSome descriptions of comparative advantage rest on a necessary condition of capital immobility. If financial or labour resources can move between countries, then comparative advantage erodes, and absolute advantage dominates.
apater wrote:from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debateSome descriptions of comparative advantage rest on a necessary condition of capital immobility. If financial or labour resources can move between countries, then comparative advantage erodes, and absolute advantage dominates.
Last year the fear was that Mr Obama would give in to enormous protectionist pressure from Congress. By introducing the levy, Mr Obama has pandered to a single union, one that does not even represent a majority of American tyre-industry workers, and he has done so against the interests of everyone else (see article). America’s tyre-makers, who have more or less given up making low-end tyres at home in favour of importing them (often from joint-ventures in guess where) declined to support the application for import “relief”. Consumers will have to pay more. The motor and garage trades will be harmed. And no one can seriously imagine that any American tyre-making job will be saved; firms will simply import cheap tyres from other low-cost places like India and Brazil.
Nor is the potential fallout from Mr Obama’s wrongheaded decision limited to trade. Evidence of a weak president being pushed leftward might cause investors to worry whether he will prove similarly feeble when it comes to reining in the vast deficits he is now racking up; and that might spook the buyers of bonds that finance all those deficits. Looming large among these, of course, are the Chinese. Deteriorating trade relations between the world’s number one debtor and its number one creditor are enough to keep any banker awake at night.
With much fanfare lately, the McGuinty government has been painting itself green, praising its new renewable-energy policies, while adopting a Buy Ontario policy.
At least 25 per cent of wind projects and 50 per cent of large solar projects must contain Ontario goods and labour, according to the new policies. These shares will increase for solar on Jan. 1, 2011, and for wind on Jan. 1, 2012. A 25-per-cent-content rule already applies for public-transit vehicles.
This Buy Ontario policy is being introduced at the very moment when Ontario and other provinces are badgering the United States to make Canada an exception to Buy America policies. Asked about this obvious contradiction, Mr. McGuinty calls Buy Ontario an "exception," which is what political protectionists, including the U.S. proponents of Buy America, always say.
Buy Ontario also lands just before 35 negotiators from the European Union begin talks on Oct. 19 in Ottawa toward a comprehensive EU-Canada economic and trade agreement. Provinces, including Ontario, signed off on the launch of these negotiations, promising in particular that they would end preferential provincial purchasing policies - one of the EU's major objectives in the talks. But already Buy Ontario underscores an old Ontario pattern: Talk free trade out of one side of the mouth, protect local producers out of the other. The Europeans have seen this act before, and they agreed to start these negotiations only after being assured by provinces that they would not scuttle a Canada-EU deal.
In theory, both the EU and Canada insist that "everything" is on the table in these ambitious negotiations; in practice, Canadian ministers (backed by protectionists in Ontario and Quebec) have already made it clear that no deal will touch supply-managed agricultural products, such as eggs, dairy and poultry, that put Canada in league with the world's biggest agricultural protectionists: South Korea, Japan and France.
Here was a real chance to put a dent in supply management in Canada and the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe, but that chance has already died. Sorry, Canadian cattle producers, no increased access to the European market for you.
Once again, therefore, Canada will miss out on potential trade action because of one sector of the economy that has a noose around every political neck in Ontario and Quebec.
If Ontario, having already bailed out the auto sector with billions of dollars, really wants to expand its "industrial policy" by using Buy Ontario, the province should at least have the courtesy to withdraw from federal-provincial demands for an end to Buy America and tell the Europeans to return home, because previously given commitments on which the negotiations began are no longer valid.
However, such intellectual honesty will be overwhelmed by the easy politics of protectionism from which local groups benefit, and the apparently irresistible temptation to speak from both sides of the mouth.
As 200 officials from Europe and Canada gather in an Ottawa meeting room today to begin the most comprehensive trade talks in Canadian history, there is great fear on both sides that the whole thing could become bogged down over the price of butter.
Negotiators will hold the first of five planned rounds of intensive talks this week to negotiate the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, a major trans-Atlantic treaty between Canada and the 27-nation bloc that would extend far beyond free trade and investment into the integration of manufacturing standards, government contracting, food standards and possibly labour mobility.
The toughest sticking-point in negotiations this week, both sides say, will likely be the dairy farmers of central Canada, who are threatening to derail the entire deal over the relatively small matter of agricultural subsidies and the sale of butter and cheese across the Atlantic.
There are beef shortages in European markets, for example, and the beef-cattle industry is lobbying for more open access, along with most other farm sectors, which see Europe's 500 million people as a highly desirable market.
But dairy farmers in central Canada, who represent a small share of agriculture, are pushing hard for protection of the government-subsidy program known as supply management. European farmers generally don't receive subsidies for the production of food, and provincial supply-management programs, which mainly apply only to dairy, would be seen as an unfair competitive advantage.
Canada isn't looking to lead in the stalled world trade talks, just as it isn't trying to lead in next month's Copenhagen climate-change negotiations. In both cases, Canada is among the laggard countries, holding back change, hoping, actually, for very little progress in order not to upset domestic interests.
One of the best things that could happen to the sluggish world economy would be a world trade deal. It would not only spur trade but would improve productivity in the developed world, and give the developing countries a better shake in product areas where they might have a competitive advantage.
The major stumbling block remains agricultural subsidies
But then there are the supply-managed farmers who hold in thrall Canadian politicians of every stripe. How much in thrall? Before the last WTO sessions, the House of Commons voted unanimously to instruct negotiators not to yield an inch so as to maintain the stratospheric tariff rates that protect dairy products, poultry and eggs.
It's a racket that hurts Canadian consumers, especially low-income ones for whom food takes up a large share of total family income, and processors. But the merest hint of a lessening of the tariffs brings the supply-management lobby swarming over Ottawa, and to the international negotiating sessions, holding Canadian negotiators' feet to the fire.
Supply management arose in the 1970s as a direct response to the separatist threat in Quebec, where farmers are hugely consequential and exceedingly powerful. The Trudeau Liberals essentially tried to buy them off with supply management. Dairy, poultry and egg farmers elsewhere immediately saw how helpful protectionism could be for them.
The Harper Conservatives, nominally free marketeers, ought to abhor supply management, except they have lots of rural Quebec and Ontario MPs. And remember that the government's principal political preoccupation was to tickle Quebec's tummy, at least until Quebeckers kicked them in the privates in the last election.
Or maybe someone in the US has come up with a creative way to reduce red tape?newguy wrote:I'm not sure if the trade war is escalating or turning ridiculous.
Bylo Selhi wrote:Or maybe someone in the US has come up with a devious way to simultaneously reduce red tape stateside and increase the supply in China?newguy wrote:I'm not sure if the trade war is escalating or turning ridiculous.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest