GET THIS. CHINA IS IMPOSING TARIFS ON AMERICAN GOOD AND FOOD (like Chicken)

[Neubarth]

GET THIS. CHINA IS IMPOSING TARIFFS ON AMERICAN GOOD AND FOOD (like Chicken)

Ahead of the Bell: China imposes tariff on chicken
Chicken producers shares could fall after China imposes duties on US chicken imports

NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of the nation's chicken producers could tumble on Monday after China said it will slap a hefty tariff on U.S. chicken imports to combat what it says are unfairly low prices.

The Chinese government said Sunday that its investigation found that U.S. chicken products are being sold at low prices which undermine the local market. New import duties ranging from 50.3 percent to as much as 105.4 percent will take effect Monday and last for five years.

Beijing and Washington also are embroiled in disputes over access to each other's markets for steel pipes, movies and books and other goods. The trade disputes have proliferated as the two governments try to boost exports amid weak demand. They have accused each other of protectionism that they say could slow a global recovery.




THAT IS IT, SHUT THE DAMNED DOORS. BECAUSE WE ARE BUYING THEIR CHEAP PRODUCTS, WE ARE BUILDING CHINA INTO A SUPER POWER WHILE OUR PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS!!!!!!!!

I AM CALLING FOR AN IMMEDIATE SHUTTING OF US PORTS TO CHINESE PRODUCTS.

Join me in this quest. We have to tell Congress to shut the doors NOW!!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

The second Obama did this you would be screaming

 

[Zoom-boing]

I only buy chicken born in the U.S.A. Says so right on the label.

 

[zzzz]

I only buy chicken born in the U.S.A. Says so right on the label.

Born in the USA and grown and processed in Mexico!

 

[loosecannon]

meanwhile

KUALA LUMPUR (Dow Jones)--China will continue to shift its foreign reserves into non-dollar assets, but U.S. government debt will remain the prime holding, former central bank adviser Fan Gang said Monday.

In an interview with Dow Jones Newswires and Malaysian media on the sidelines of a conference in Kuala Lumpur, he also said he expects the yuan to keep rising gradually, regardless of what the dollar does.

"The U.S. will still continue to be the major holding" for China's reserves, the world's largest, he said. "But definitely (Beijing) will look for more alternative-investment opportunities."

This will help create a more balanced situation as the world moves "away from the domination of the U.S. reserve currency," said Fan, director of China's National Economic Research Institute.

Beijing is under great political pressure to let the tightly controlled yuan, or renminbi, rise faster. Legislation now before the U.S. Congress would target imports from China and other countries with currencies perceived to be undervalued.

Whether the dollar stabilizes or continues its broad decline, Fan said he expects "the renminbi will appreciate but of course still in the way of gradual appreciation."

 

[Douger]

Here fools.
Go download the .pdf.
Fish Story - Food & Water Watch | Food & Water Watch

 

[loosecannon]

The Trade War Spirals, As China Imposes Massive 105.4% Tariff On American Poultry

The Trade War Spirals, As China Imposes Massive 105.4% Tariff On American Poultry

If this escalates into a full scale trade war we are fucked!

 

[loosecannon]

I AM CALLING FOR AN IMMEDIATE SHUTTING OF US PORTS TO CHINESE PRODUCTS.

Join me in this quest. We have to tell Congress to shut the doors NOW!!!!

That would result in an unmitigated disaster, plunging the world into a world wide depression.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I only buy chicken born in the U.S.A. Says so right on the label.

Born in the USA and grown and processed in Mexico!

 

[loosecannon]

So the US and China are playing chicken with the world's economy...

casting new light on last weeks spat over a fishing captain that involved another nation trying to debase their currency against the yuan.

This could be the beginning of something horrible, or it could all blow over. A lot depends on whether Congress ups the pressure on Obama to impose tariffs on Chinese goods.

Talk about a potential October surprise

 

[zzzz]

So the US and China are playing chicken with the world's economy...

casting new light on last weeks spat over a fishing captain that involved another nation trying to debase their currency against the yuan.

This could be the beginning of something horrible, or it could all blow over. A lot depends on whether Congress ups the pressure on Obama to impose tariffs on Chinese goods.

Talk about a potential October surprise

This is just the normal give and take of international trade and politics. This has been happening with different characters forever. We need each other and who knows this could be the beginning of a CFTA (Chinese Free Trade Agreement)!

 

[loosecannon]

So the US and China are playing chicken with the world's economy...

casting new light on last weeks spat over a fishing captain that involved another nation trying to debase their currency against the yuan.

This could be the beginning of something horrible, or it could all blow over. A lot depends on whether Congress ups the pressure on Obama to impose tariffs on Chinese goods.

Talk about a potential October surprise

This is just the normal give and take of international trade and politics. This has been happening with different characters forever. We need each other and who knows this could be the beginning of a CFTA (Chinese Free Trade Agreement)!

I dunno I was reading just yesterday that top Chinese officials do not believe that China could withstand a 20% evaluation of the renminbi without social order breaking down.

Meanwhile the US, EU and Japan are all reluctantly forced into a debasement contest to break the yuan/dollar peg.

We are already involved in real economic warfare.

But you are right this could be the beginning of something good.

 

[loosecannon]

So where does last week’s policy announcement fit into all this? Well, China has allowed the renminbi to rise — but barely. As of Thursday, the currency was only about half a percent higher than its typical level before the announcement. And all indications are that watching the future movement of the renminbi will be like watching paint dry: Chinese officials are still making statements denying that a rise in their currency will do anything to reduce trade imbalances, and prices in the forward market, in which traders agree to exchange currencies at various points in the future, suggest a rise of only about 2 percent in the renminbi by the end of this year. This is basically a joke.

What the Chinese have done, they claim, to increase the “flexibility” of their exchange rate: it’s moving around more from day to day than it did in the past, sometimes up, sometimes down.

Of course, Chinese policy makers know perfectly well that although U.S. officials have indeed called for more currency flexibility, that was just a diplomatic euphemism for what America, and the world, wants (and has the right to demand): a much stronger renminbi. Having the currency bob up or down slightly makes no difference to the fundamentals.

So what comes next? China’s government is clearly trying to string the rest of us along, putting off action until something — it’s hard to say what — comes up.

That’s not acceptable. China needs to stop giving us the runaround and deliver real change. And if it refuses, it’s time to talk about trade sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25krugman.html

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain: The Regulation Tax Grows - WSJ.com

The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008, a 3% real increase over five years, to about 14% of U.S. national income. This cost is in addition to the federal tax burden of 21%, for a combined cost of 35% of national income. One out of every three dollars earned in the U.S. goes to pay for or comply with federal laws and regulations, and new policies enacted in 2010 for health care and financial services will increase this burden.

Attempts have been made to estimate the costs of these laws and regulations, but the calculations are incomplete. In March, for example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost and subsequent effect of health-care legislation on the federal budget deficit. These estimates did not consider the full compliance cost on businesses.

The Regulatory Right to Know Act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a cost-benefit analysis of federal rules and paperwork "to the extent feasible." So-called "non-major" rules are excluded in their 2009 report, however, as are rules adopted more than 10 years ago. This means that thousands of costly federal mandates are not included in OMB's tally. Discouragingly, OMB ignored the distribution of the regulatory burden, which is uneven.

In a report released last week for the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration, we find that small businesses bear a disproportionately large share of regulatory costs. The portion of these costs that falls initially on businesses overall was $8,086 per employee in 2008. But these costs are not borne equally by businesses of all sizes. Larger firms benefit from economies of scale in compliance; small businesses do not have that advantage.

As a consequence, small businesses—those with fewer than 20 employees—incur regulatory costs 42% greater than firms with between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% greater than firms with more than 500 employees. The regulatory cost per employee for small businesses was $10,585, compared to $7,454 for medium firms and $7,755 for large firms.

The degree to which federal regulations disadvantage small businesses varies across the economy. In some sectors, such as manufacturing, the regulatory cost difference between small businesses and their larger counterparts is particularly acute.

Small manufacturers bear compliance costs that are 110% higher than those of medium-sized firms and 125% higher than large firms' costs. As much as it is fashionable to blame China for the demise of small manufacturing in America, the evidence suggests that looking for some reasons closer to home is warranted.

In no category do small businesses pay less in regulatory costs than both medium and large businesses. In retail and wholesale trade, small businesses pay 13% less than medium firms but 15% more than large firms. In services, small businesses pay 13% more than medium firms but 9% less than large firms. In health care and "other" (the biggest components of which are utilities and construction), small businesses pay 45% and 70% more than medium firms and 28% and 83% more than large firms.

This distribution of regulatory costs places small firms at a substantial competitive disadvantage. The cost disadvantage confronting small business is driven by environmental regulations, tax compliance, and occupational safety and homeland security rules.

In sum, individuals and businesses bear the burden of the $1.75 trillion cost of regulations, and small businesses bear a disproportionately large share of the compliance costs. Businesses must close, reallocate activity, absorb, or pass on the expense of complying with regulatory requirements.

In per-household terms, the combined federal burden of regulation and taxes is a remarkable $37,962. Increased transparency in both the cost and benefit side of the regulatory equation is necessary to determine whether what we spend is worth the 35% of national income that it costs, and whether the distribution of the burden is relatively efficient. This is particularly true now that the federal government is undertaking Herculean efforts to stimulate the economy while increasing regulations costly to businesses.

 

[Neubarth]

WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!
WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!
WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!
WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!
WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!
WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!

DEATH TO CHINESE IMPERIALISM!

THERE IS NO REASON FOR CHINESE PRODUCTS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN WE CAN MAKE ALL OF OUR OWN. IT WILL TAKE A FEW MONTHS, BUT WE CAN DO IT.

DEATH TO CHINA! DEATH TO CHINESE IMPERIALISM. THIS IS WAR TO THE END.

It is time for the American people in righteous indignation to fight back. Boycott any Communist product. Death to China!

 

[Neubarth]

This is just the normal give and take of international trade and politics. This has been happening with different characters forever. We need each other and who knows this could be the beginning of a CFTA (Chinese Free Trade Agreement)!

We don't need each other. Give 24 hours notice and bomb any store selling Communist Chinese shit in America. (Just in case you did not know, Chink comes from the Korean War and stands for Chinese Communist ChinC = Chink)

This is America, Dammit! Land of the Free and home of the brave. Time to shut the Chinese pipelines down. Time to put Americans back to work.

Send the Chinese economy to hell where it belongs.

 

[Neubarth]

Actually it was the political policies of the past six presidential administrations. Repudiate all trade agreements with China and close our ports now.

America for Americans. No more Chink Shit in America.

Say it loud and say it proud. "No more Chink shit in America."

 

[Annie]

Robert Samuelson thinks we're heading for a trade war:

washingtonpost.com

The makings of a trade war with China

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, September 27, 2010; A15

No one familiar with the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 should relish the prospect of a trade war with China -- but that seems to be where we're headed and probably should be where we are headed. Although the Smoot-Hawley tariff did not cause the Great Depression, it contributed to its severity by provoking widespread retaliation. Confronting China's export subsidies risks a similar tit-for-tat cycle at a time when the global economic recovery is weak. This is a risk, unfortunately, we need to take.

In a decade, China has gone from a huge, poor nation to an economic colossus. Although its per capita income ($6,600 in 2009) is only one-seventh that of the United States ($46,400), the sheer size of its economy gives it a growing global influence. China passed Japan this year as the second-largest national economy. In 2009, it displaced Germany as the biggest exporter and also became the world's largest energy user.

The trouble is that China has never genuinely accepted the basic rules governing the world economy. China follows those rules when they suit its interests and rejects, modifies or ignores them when they don't. Every nation, including the United States, would like to do the same, and most have tried. What's different is that most other countries support the legitimacy of the rules -- often requiring the sacrifice of immediate economic self-interest -- and none is as big as China. Their departures from norms don't threaten the entire system. ...

 

[Neubarth]

So, let them sell their Chink shit to Africa. I guarantee you that the workers of Europe will follow our movement in the United States.

American Workers for America. Fuck the rest of the world.

 

[Neubarth]

Robert Samuelson thinks we're heading for a trade war:

That is exactly what I am calling for.

Workers of America Unite. No more Chink Shit in America.