 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Yep, Shrub is a protectionist through and through. He makes symbolic rhetoric and gestures about promoting free trade through a few relatively insignificant bilateral agreements, but then turns around and supports a number of far more substantial protectionist measures, from agrisbusidies, to steel tariffs, to textile quotas. Just a couple weeks ago, he imposed quotas on Chinese bras, dressing gowns, and nit fabric (so now they're threatening to join the EU in imposing retaliatory measures on US imports). That nimrod in the white house is gonna set off a trade war one of these days.
And I don't think he's going to back down on steel or anything else. Last week, after the trade talks in Miami pretty much dissolved, Greenspan (according to the WP) warned, not specifying any specific contries or measures, that "some clouds of creeping protectionism have become increasingly visible on today's horizon."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Go look at the amount of trade that flows between the US and Canada under NAFTA and compare it to the industries impacted under these tariffs. You will find that even though Ben Kenobi's community might be impacted by this disproportionately, and it's a stupid thing to do economically (more negative for us than for you), these tariffs impact only a small part of our overall trade (by my calculation, less than 2%). Even then, the volume of tariffed goods will only decrease--not be stopped outright.
Would you cancel NAFTA because of this? Unless you're a fool, the answer is no. Is NAFTA in danger because of this? Not on your life. We're both making too good of money on the deal. |
That's not the point, Dan. The point is that many people in a specific region of Canada are being seriously disadvantaged by the behaviour of your government on trade with Canada. Like losing jobs and homes disadvantaged, not just paying more for a new home.
Furthermore, the level of stupidity of your government apparently knows no bounds. You've heard they have imposed tarrifs on certain strains of wheat, yes? That's right. Canada provides zero subsidy to its farmers except in cases of catastrophe or large scale crop failures, but your government seems to think that our farmers have an unfair advantage in growing wheat because there is a board that handles all international sales of specified types.
The wheat tarrifs are pretty small, but add them to the large scale damage being done to the economy of BC by your repeated tactics with softwood (this is not the first round btw, and Bush was not the originator) have some people thinking maybe we should impose a 100% export tarrif on natural gas, or something like that, to get the attention of the pin heads in Washington.
Of course, we would not worry to much for Americans. Afterall you buy lots of stuff from us and we buy lots of stuff from you. So it'll be all good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
That's not the point, Dan. The point is that many people in a specific region of Canada are being seriously disadvantaged by the behaviour of your government on trade with Canada. Like losing jobs and homes disadvantaged, not just paying more for a new home. |
Is my sympathy with them supposed to change my thoughts and actions about the wisdom of the tariffs? People are losing jobs and homes in Wheeling, West Virginia because of free trade too. Are we supposed to increase tariffs on steel because of this?
It's not good to look at narrow interests when we talk about trade. The broad interest is where Canada is on the firmest ground in these arguments. But the strongest of Canada's arguments is that it is in the U.S. broad interest to remove these tariffs. Again, the U.S. is hurt more on the whole than Canada by these actions.
Remember that I advocate Canada putting on retaliatory tariffs. This would increase the cost to us and make it harder for our politicians to justify the tariffs. We'll have a good trade war or two and then all of the tariffs (and subsidies) will be chucked out.
Last edited by DanS on 01-12-2003 at 02:30
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
True. But why is it when you hear about NAFTA in the US, that the deal has been overwhelmingly negative for Americans, with all the jobs lost to Mexico? |
I have no idea why they would say this. Or at least I have no idea why anybody educated in the field would say this.
Anyway, the US hasn't had a trade surplus with Canada since at least 1986. If you believe that a trade deficit loses you jobs, or that trade surpluses gain them (neither or which is true), then you will believe that NAFTA has been a loser.
As for the rest of your post, I agree, although I would say that Canadian soft lumber producers aren't necessarily the most efficient. Like any business, US soft lumber producers will sell for what the market bears. If the Canadian soft lumber has a tariff, then US soft lumber producers will likely just raise prices while giving away the same market share. This is why tariffs are pretty bad at reviving moribund industries.
Last edited by DanS on 01-12-2003 at 06:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
DrSpike:
Don't get me wrong about Soth Korea. SK profited hugely from exports, like Japan did in the past. But, like Japan, Korea's internal market was rather protected from foreign products, especially from products that competed with SK's emerging industries (steel, shipyards). At least that's what I understood in my textbooks: SK profited from the openness of others as well as its relative closeness from others.
As such SK, had a huge part of trade in its GDP, but those were exports (or at least, those were definitely NOT imports of foreign steel and other products competing with Daewoo/Hyunday)
OTOH, North Korea had almost no commercial relations with other countries, both for exports and imports, and being two-way-closed is a reason of its doom.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DrSpike
|
 |
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
DrSpike:
Don't get me wrong about Soth Korea. SK profited hugely from exports, like Japan did in the past. But, like Japan, Korea's internal market was rather protected from foreign products, especially from products that competed with SK's emerging industries (steel, shipyards). At least that's what I understood in my textbooks: SK profited from the openness of others as well as its relative closeness from others.
As such SK, had a huge part of trade in its GDP, but those were exports (or at least, those were definitely NOT imports of foreign steel and other products competing with Daewoo/Hyunday)
OTOH, North Korea had almost no commercial relations with other countries, both for exports and imports, and being two-way-closed is a reason of its doom. |
I can't find the piece I mentioned before.......I'm sure it's in my office somewhere, but so are lots of other papers. 
I did find the reference though. The paper is called The East Asian Miracle: Economic growth and public policy (edit: [1993], damn sloppy referencing  ). It may be on the World Bank site; if not you may be able to track it down elsewhere.
Reading your last point I think what you remember from any articles/books you read before is that South Korea is famous for strategic trade policies. These are policies aimed at promoting a certain export sector, and were implemented after trade as a proportion of GDP started to grow. These policies are generally viewed with scepticism, since they usually do more harm than good. South Korea is a good example since they spent oodles of resources on promoting certain chemical industries in the 70s, resources that were essentially wasted.
Overall the reason I addressed your earlier posts was that you incorrectly corrected Shi, who made a valid point. And it is certainly true that the driving force behind development in many countries such as South Korea, was openness to trade, not some benefit from closed markets that occured before they began to open up, or later through strategic trade policies. The benefits of such policies are nearly always (as IIRC in the paper I referenced) estimated as being outweighed by the costs, at least in the Korean example.
Last edited by DrSpike on 02-12-2003 at 05:18
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2003 01:36
magnetostatics in materials. He thus engages in easy one-liners because work makes him tired and care very little about anything political. As a matter of fact, KH can recall a time when he argued seriously about these things on Apolyton, 2 years ago...
|