Obama risks trade war with China

[expat_panama]

“I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products,” President Obama said last week in his State of the Union address.

He also indicated that he’s willing to risk a trade war with China, possibly leading to a swift closure of new markets for U.S. goods and services - the exact opposite of his stated goal.

Mr. Obama entered the White House three years ago as a protectionist candidate who spoke of withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement. Once in office, he felt the burden of responsible governance and reversed course, promising to double exports in five years and embracing the free-trade agreements negotiated by his predecessor.

Last week, however, the president switched back to campaign mode. He defended his record on trade but also went on the offensive against China, announcing the creation of a “trade enforcement unit” that will investigate “unfair trading practices,” search for “counterfeit or unsafe goods” and file formal complaints, presumably with the World Trade Organization.

[snip]

Meanwhile, China retaliated with its own tariffs on American chicken exports, doubling the prices of some products and shrinking the U.S. share of China’s chicken market. The move was so damaging that Ambassador Ron Kirk, the U.S. trade representative, complained that China was “threatening American jobs.”

The Obama administration can’t have it both ways, claiming to save jobs when it pursues protectionism and griping about threatened jobs when competitors strike back.

This illustrates the weird logic of trade wars. A dispute that the Obama administration thought would involve only a subsector of the tire trade suddenly hurt American agriculture. Trade wars have a terrible tendency to spread through unrelated industries like a deadly contagion until they infect the whole economy.

[snip]

Exerpt; read more at KLECKNER: Obama risks trade war with China - Washington Times

 

[expat_panama]

Let's face it, tax'n'spending is wrong whether it's protectionism or the welfare state.

 

[DSGE]

Let's face it, tax'n'spending is wrong whether it's protectionism or the welfare state.

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...?

 

[expat_panama]

... 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...?

--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.

 

[DSGE]

... 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...?

--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",

Okay. I'm not exactly clear on that. From the quote you've provided, it doesn't sound like there's any tariff.

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.

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

... 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...?

--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.

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.

 

[expat_panama]

....it doesn't sound like there's any tariff...

Huh. Not sure what the disconnect is here. You saw the ninth and tenth paragraphs--

Consider the administration’s special tariff on low-priced tires from China. If the United States initiates a trade war against Beijing, historians may point to this skirmish as the opening salvo in a wider conflict.

In his State of the Union address, Mr. Obama praised his policy, adopted in 2009, of slapping special duties on cheap tires from China. “Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires,” the president said.

--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?

 

[DSGE]

... 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...?

--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.

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.

Around what year was this?

 

[DSGE]

....it doesn't sound like there's any tariff...

Huh. Not sure what the disconnect is here. You saw the ninth and tenth paragraphs--

Consider the administration’s special tariff on low-priced tires from China. If the United States initiates a trade war against Beijing, historians may point to this skirmish as the opening salvo in a wider conflict.

In his State of the Union address, Mr. Obama praised his policy, adopted in 2009, of slapping special duties on cheap tires from China. “Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires,” the president said.

--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?

Only read the quote, not the article. Fair enough.

 

[Unkotare]

... 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...?

--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.

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.

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

Name a free trade agreement since WWII that was allowed to expire.

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.

So tell us all about the "Prosperity" we're experiencing due to NAFTA? You can't because there isn't any.

Did you hear that "giant sucking sound"? That was the sound of all those jobs moving to Mexico.

 

[Old_Liberal]

We have been in a trade war with communist china, since day one. Except we were getting our ass kicked from the get-go and just did not give a shit.

Communist China is playing America, taking advantage of excessive Capitalistic greed, and plan on being number one. A communist nations as number one. You gotta love that.

China has always tended to look long term, while our capitalists, look for profits, even if those greater profits are only short term. China, unlike the US, controls their economy, and it can turn on a dime, compared to ours. They have an advantage here.

They have ripped us off since the get-go, and the influence of those corporations that off shored has kept our hands tied. It is perfectly acceptable to run perpetual trade deficets with communist china.

We need a trade war, if only to put those US factories that china owns a piece of out of business. When we stopped making our own consumer goods, while our economic model was based upon consumption, this destroyed the middle class and took away a huge ladder up for the poor. I pray for a trade war. America is enriching a communist state, who is building up its military, going into space, and expanding its blue water navy. With American bucks, from American consumers. This is fucking insanity.

This is where capitalistic greed can lead when the gov't allows it to enrich enemies. The greed clouds judgement, and makes the world a more dangerous place.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Name a free trade agreement since WWII that was allowed to expire.

Have you considered that is because free trade is beneficial and not everyone is as stupid as you?

 

[Old_Liberal]

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.

Name a free trade agreement since WWII that was allowed to expire.

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.

So tell us all about the "Prosperity" we're experiencing due to NAFTA? You can't because there isn't any.

Did you hear that "giant sucking sound"? That was the sound of all those jobs moving to Mexico.

The sucking sound that Perot tried to warn americans about? I remember when Clinton was justifying him signing the republican/special interests NAFTA. Oh, he said we would be able to buy our widgets cheaper. But he forgot to tell us that we would lose our jobs in the process if we were involved in making those goods, or in transporting them, or if we worked for a business that sold goods and services to the manufacturers.

Look, free trade agreements were concocted for one thing. Special interests wanted to max out profits by lowering labor costs, by moving to those poor countries where labor was plentiful and cheap. And then of course have free tarriff free access back into the largest market on earth. Which by the way, manufacturing had a great hand in creating.

So the manufacturers who helped to create the middle class and the consumer market here, moved off to leach off of what they created. Then the inevitable started to occur. Our middle class started to shrink. They are slowly destroying the very market they are maxing out profits on today. Short termed greedy capitalistic vision at work.

Communist China will never run a trade deficet with America. You know why? Because corporate greed does not create their economic policy. They fashion their policy to benefit the communist state, as America used to construct agreements to benefit this nation, instead of a few special interests.

 

[Unkotare]

]So tell us all about the "Prosperity" we're experiencing due to NAFTA? .

Ok


http://www.freetradealliance.org/ad...y/Benefits on NAFTA on letterhead 5-2009.pdf


NAFTA: A Decade of Success | Office of the United States Trade Representative


NAFTA Benefits Arizona | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

 

[Unkotare]

I pray for a trade war.

You are an utter fool and don't even understand what you are saying.

 

[expat_panama]

...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...

It was actually the other way around, first the free trade/deficits and then the tariffs.

John Adams set up America's first foreign embassy in Holland where he worked out both our first free trade agreement and our first loans to finance the US government's first massive deficit spending for George Washington's army. Collecting duties on tariffs came after Washington got control of the ports.

 

[Old_Liberal]

]So tell us all about the "Prosperity" we're experiencing due to NAFTA? .

Ok


http://www.freetradealliance.org/ad...y/Benefits on NAFTA on letterhead 5-2009.pdf


NAFTA: A Decade of Success | Office of the United States Trade Representative


NAFTA Benefits Arizona | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Prosperity generally refers to the middle class. Free trade has shrunk the middle class. And that is the only thing that matters here.

An economic model that shrinks the middle, is a dangerous model. We have more poor today, due to free trade. But one has to look to actually see it. When you can see it in your daily life, it is REAL,, regardless what the stats say. Liars can figure.

 

[Unkotare]

]So tell us all about the "Prosperity" we're experiencing due to NAFTA? .

Ok


http://www.freetradealliance.org/ad...y/Benefits on NAFTA on letterhead 5-2009.pdf


NAFTA: A Decade of Success | Office of the United States Trade Representative


NAFTA Benefits Arizona | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Prosperity generally refers to the middle class. .

Only to moronic lefties transparently attempting to use class warfare rhetoric to avoid actual facts.

It's not working for ya.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Name a free trade agreement since WWII that was allowed to expire.

Have you considered that is because free trade is beneficial and not everyone is as stupid as you?

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who?