EU retaliation in steel war.

[rah]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
No

Why target key election states if the EU just doesn't like this particular decision made by Bush? Those states are specifically targetted as a statement that they don't want Bush to get re-elected.

Then the EU isn't as smart as you think. There is way too much time between now and his reelection for this to linger in voter's minds. We're talking short attention span americans here.

RAH

[Kyle]

Re: Re: EU retaliation in steel war.

Originally posted by faded glory



I think you pulled this out of your ass. TIME didnt report anything. But EU is considering further retaliation. However, such a move would be considered Undermining the Bush administration. Not a good idea. And could lead to further retalations on are side. Oh and your over your heads. USA Market is the biggest one on Earth. It hurts you enormously when we place restrictions on your imports. So dont push your luck.

The targeted retaliation has been reported in various places.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Re: EU retaliation in steel war.

Originally posted by Kyle
The targeted retaliation has been reported in various places.

Strangely enough, the BBC can not confirm if that is true or not. You'd think that they would be among the first to know.

[faded glory]

retaliation yes.

But not against states that voted for bush. and if that is true. I suggest the EU serouisly reconsider. If Bush gets word of that. Oh you are in trouble.....

Oh EU steel is already hurting I heard.

[DinoDoc]

BTW, can someone explain to me where the EU gets off whining about the tariffs & subsidies in other countries considering thier own utter disregard for the values of free trade?

[Colonâ„¢]

When the US imposed trade sanctions on imports from the EU as a result of WTO-ruling on banana imports in the EU, it targeted goods from specific EU countries deemed to be most obstinate.
Likewise, the European Commission targeted goods from certain US states deemed most responsible for the rise of the steel import tariffs. (it's yours to make up whether the European Commission was successful)

Faded Glory, "So dont push your luck."

As a result of the FSC-ruling by the WTO, the EU has the right to impose $4 billions in trade sanctions on imports from the US. So don't push your luck.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by faded glory
retaliation yes.

But not against states that voted for bush. and if that is true. I suggest the EU serouisly reconsider. If Bush gets word of that. Oh you are in trouble.....

Oh EU steel is already hurting I heard.

It's been reported, but I think it may be assumptions based on the products; like citris fruits (Florida) and Harley Davidson motorcyles, etc.

[faded glory]

ugh....colon, ass, anus.....whatever your name



Yes you have the right to retaliate. But dont go overboard, we can hurt you many...many...more times than you can hurt us. You do realize that?

[DanS]

I agree with GP on this. The US shouldn't have done it, but Europe's actions vindicate the protectionists' principle--a capitulation to the "dumping" argument. Europe is saying "it's all right if it happens to them, but not alright if it happens to us."

If we would have kept it to a good, clean trade war, then maybe Europe would have been able to promote the free trade it loves.

FG: We can only hurt them only slightly more than they can hurt us.

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

What good is "free trade" if it leads to the inability of a nation(s) to produce something natively that it was able to prior to free trade? Do nations genuinely want to become dependent on an outside foreign source of a product(s) that they themselves were once able to produce?

I enjoy the low prices that come about because of efficiency that free trade can encourage. But there are hidden price tags behind the low prices. For instance, I'd rather pay a higher price at the supermarket for food if it meant it was produced at a local, state or national level rather than coming from some overseas source, a source that could be cut off in certain circumstances.

Hmm ... is any of this making sense?

Gatekeeper

[Colonâ„¢]

FG,
Considering the many billions of net-purchases of US assets by EU corporations and citizens the past few years, and the many hundreds of billions of US assets they currently posses, the US should be hard-pressed to be careful as well

Dan,
The hypocrisy on all sides in trade-issues is truly gargantuan and the latest EC measures are contra-productive and unnecessary but I think that you can also say that they aren't as random and a little more thought out. Steel imports into the EU only face a higher tariff when the volume reaches a level of 10% above the average of the past 3 years and countries who's exports make up only a small share of EU's steel imports are except.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Everyone:

What good is "free trade" if it leads to the inability of a nation(s) to produce something natively that it was able to prior to free trade? Do nations genuinely want to become dependent on an outside foreign source of a product(s) that they themselves were once able to produce?

I enjoy the low prices that come about because of efficiency that free trade can encourage. But there are hidden price tags behind the low prices. For instance, I'd rather pay a higher price at the supermarket for food if it meant it was produced at a local, state or national level rather than coming from some overseas source, a source that could be cut off in certain circumstances.

Hmm ... is any of this making sense?

Gatekeeper

1. Often having free trade means that a country is less susceptible to disruptions in supply...since there are more sources.

2. If disruptions from foriegn sources are likely/often than some domestic capacity will remain in the amrketplace to take advantage of these times. (Oil wells good example here).

3. Would you rather have a more volatile price of bread that was cheaper as an average or a set price that was always high?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by GP
3. Would you rather have a more volatile price of bread that was cheaper as an average or a set price that was always high?

I might lean towards the latter ... it depends, of course, on how "high" is. I've seen loaves of bread going anywhere from 29 cents to $1.79.

My outlook might be colored a bit by the fact that I live in the bread basket (pun intended), and can see how low prices (going on four years now) are having a detrimental effect on farmers. Not all of which, I might add, can be laid at the feet of free trade. I know that many European nations' ag policies certainly aren't free trade-oriented, though. They might say the same of us, though.

Gatekeeper

[DanS]

Colon: I guess I don't see much value in comparing hypocricies.

If Europe just went with the retaliatory measures, then that actually would have given Bush more choices. It would have given him a political excuse to drop the tarrifs or to do a more conciliatory deal (after all the yelling was done ). That's what I was hoping for.

This would have been able to stanch the momentum for tarrifs and subsidies. I don't like where the US is heading with farm subsidies.

[Colonâ„¢]

Gatekeeper, that’s why there are trade agreements and organisation like NAFTA and WTO, they’re made not just to ensure a level playing field but also that no disruptions occur, by regulating countries’ trade policies and providing tools to punish those who break the rules.
Of course it’s possible that exports from a certain country halt because the country is plunged into mayhem but such country usually don’t make up a large share of international trade (and certainly not those in half-finished and finished goods).

Regarding agriculture, it’s one of the sectors where market-forces are least allowed to function properly.

Dan, sorry if you got that impression but I wasn’t comparing trying to compare hypocrisies.