Obama risks trade war with China

Discussion in 'Economy' started by expat_panama, Feb 1, 2012.

  1. expat_panama
    Offline

    expat_panama Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,461
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +253
    Exerpt; read more at KLECKNER: Obama risks trade war with China - Washington Times
     
  2. expat_panama
    Offline

    expat_panama Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,461
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +253
    Let's face it, tax'n'spending is wrong whether it's protectionism or the welfare state.
     
  3. DSGE
    Offline

    DSGE VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Not an American, so cut me some slack, but where's the "tax'n'spending" in this? From what I'm reading here all that was established was a "trade enforcement unit" that will investigate “unfair trading practices,” search for “counterfeit or unsafe goods” and file formal complaints...?
     
  4. expat_panama
    Offline

    expat_panama Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,461
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +253
    --let's get clear that this "trade enforcement unit" is for running a replay of what the article called "the administration’s special tariff on low-priced tires from China", and let's also be clear that a tariff is a tax. In this case the tariff forces us to not only support wasteful spending, but also to pay directly into the pockets of underachieving corporate welfare queens.

    Protectionism = tax'n'spending.
     
  5. DSGE
    Offline

    DSGE VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Okay. I'm not exactly clear on that. From the quote you've provided, it doesn't sound like there's any tariff.


    Yeah I'm as pro-free trade as the next guy, you don't need to convince me. I'm just not clear on the fact that there's a tariff.
     
  6. Mad Scientist
    Online

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,936
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    We had tariffs since this country started. It was only when those tariffs were replaced with "Free Trade Agreements" did the jobs start leaving and massive deficits begin.

    Free Trade Agreements = Loss of Jobs and National Sovereignty.

    "Loss of Sovereignty"? Why would a FTA equal Loss of Sovereignty?

    Because written into those agreements are international complaint resolution boards that are binding. Your National Gov't should be handling those complaints NOT some unaccountable, unelected asshole in a foreign country.
     
  7. expat_panama
    Offline

    expat_panama Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,461
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +253
    Huh. Not sure what the disconnect is here. You saw the ninth and tenth paragraphs--
    --and you know that a duties are tariffs are taxes? You follow how the President stated that those taxes went to benefit those that support him?
     
  8. DSGE
    Offline

    DSGE VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Around what year was this? :eusa_eh:
     
  9. DSGE
    Offline

    DSGE VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Only read the quote, not the article. Fair enough.
     
  10. Unkotare
    Online

    Unkotare Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    61,449
    Thanks Received:
    4,883
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +11,864

    By that reasoning, all treaties are a "loss of soveriegnty." They are not of course, since soveriegn nations always retain the option of withdrawing from an agreement and accepting whatever consquences may follow.


    And let us not forget that FTAs are not one-way arrangements. Greater and freer access to foreign markets for US goods is good for US business, including manufacturing and agriculture. US companies don't 'take jobs overseas' because of free trade, but because we make doing business less profitable and attractive here. And of course part of it is simply a matter of cost and benefit - a matter most effectively addressed via rising prosperity throughout markets.
     

Share This Page