Raise tariffs on America

[DanS]

or dense populations supporting greater manufacturing effeciency in the East of the US

???

[Ned]

Ben, et al., my first reaction to your post is that we should convince the US administration to stop its protectionist activities with the THREAT of retaliation. However, Bush seems reluctant to back off on the steel tarriffs, for example, even in the face of a WTO judgment against the US.

Under these circumstances, I would normally seek to replace the president with a free trader. However, Bill Clinton is not running this time and all the Democrat candidates who are, except, perhaps, for Lieberman, are even more protectionist than Bush.

It looks like we are in for a very bumpy ride trade wise for the next few years.

[Whoha]

A trade war is in the cards, bet on it. The congressional guys are even more against free trade(depending on how the economy is doing then), and they get to vote on all of that right before the election.

[DanS]

However, Bush seems reluctant to back off on the steel tarriffs, for example, even in the face of a WTO judgment against the US.

He's backing off. Which is why I agree that some countries should at least threaten to raise tariffs on the US.

[Japher]

Tariffs are a nations way to barter and control national production levels. Raising tarrifs on the US will require us to also raise tariffs on specific industries. That will be more detremental to the rest of the world than it would be to the US, especially seeing as how many nations do rely on us to feed them... Ag is king baby...

It may force the US into a more isolationalist stance as well. No food to China and NK to keep them hating us, no food to Japan to keep them making our cars, no economic support to 3rd world nations to keep their leaders buying new automobiles, no military aid to the Eastern block to keep the Russians and other militant factions from causing world war 3, no military aid to SK to keep them an independent country, no aid...

If anything the US should raise tariffs on certain industries for specific countries.

[DanS]

Raising tarrifs on the US will require us to also raise tariffs on specific industries. That will be more detremental to the rest of the world than it would be to the US

I thought we had established that this is in fact more harmful to the US than the rest of the world and that's precisely why we don't do it with any regularity.

[Japher]

I thought we had established that this is in fact more harmful to the US

I didn't read the whole thread. I scan it and get back to ya.

[DanS]

Now that I reread what you said, perhaps I misunderstood. If countries raise tariffs on the US goods and services, that only hurts their own people. That's regardless of whether or not the US returns the favor of a tariff. But that argument is counterintuitive, so sometimes it might be useful for the US to return the favor in order to accentuate the fact that it's no good for their people.

[Japher]

My opinion is even more jostled having read this thread. Though I think adjusting tariffs based on agression or for the sake of retaliation is a very silly and dangerous notion to toy with.

How I see it---

Exporting Nation:

Lower Tariffs -> Develop Industry, Increase Exports, Increase Local Competition = Good For local Economy (which can benefit long term foreign economy)

Raise Tariffs -> Consoldate Insdustry, Decrease Exorts, Decrease Local Competition = Good For foreign Economy (which can benefit long term local economy)

Thus,

"out-of-control" industry (i.e. has begun monoploizing, lacks recent development) then raise tariffs to encourage foreign competition: Semiconductor Industry.

emerging or "suffering" industry then lower tariffs to encourage local competition to increase competitive edge on the foreign market: Russian Caviar is a good example of the failure to do such.

***-for-tat, negotiations between countries should be based on economic factors and not on a "Buy My Lumber you big dumb basterd!" attitude. Since, it all comes down to whether a country wants to be dependent on themselves or someone else for the given good. If Canada were smart they would worry less about lumber and more about manufacturing, specifically in the pharmeceutical arena. Many pharma companies are looking around to place plants, the industry is about to boom, and US legislation is making the demand for Canadian drugs to increase.

[Whoha]

Those drugs aren't Canadian drugs. They are drugs made here, shipped to canada, then reimported to the US. Canada does some price control and other things that while outwardly appealing, are not a good thing.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They've tried this 4 times now. Anytime it has gotten near a tribunal we have won or an agreement is struck. Yet they come back again the next time.

Because they live in lala-land.

"That might be because there is so much of BC, and so many trees, that the people of BC might want to encourage activity in that sector."

That would be factored into the market price. But again, from the banana dispute (very partial US virctory) to the FSC case, the US positions are based on corrupt politics, not on law in any sense.

Competitive advantages that some areas have are nevre a WTO problem, no matter how much some politicians want to make them that.

The political reality behind the WTO: The US and the EU agreed on some rules because both can hurt the other as much as the other way round. Unfortunately both have their protectionist leanings, and unless you are the 10 trillion $ size, you can get screwed if the US or the EU decide to violate the rules.

[notyoueither]

Oh, so agreements aren't worth signing with either the US or the EU?

[Ben Kenobi]

Under these circumstances, I would normally seek to replace the president with a free trader.

Agreed. If they dems really wanted to beat Bush, this is the tack they would take. It worked for Clinton, and it would work against Bush.

Hersh:

So might makes right? The US will hurt itself, as willl the EU if they take this stance.

[notyoueither]

Really, we should just turn the gas off come January. We should leave it off till they promise to abide by the treaty. It's that simple.

[Japher]

Bush Drops Steel Tariffs

Happy now