Discussion in 'Economy' started by onedomino, May 31, 2005.
Here is my question:
We ignore their decisions when it comes to decisions against us, so why bring anything before them at all? This shows a dichotomy, we want to beat somebody over the head with an ineffective organization?
Exactly what I was wondering. Every time we pursue such an avenue we legitimize the idiotic view of some, including a couple of fools on the SCOTUS, that the United States should subordinate its sovereignty to some world governmental body. Not only that, but there is no effective redress of grievances here anyway since any party is free to ignore the rulings of the WTO with impunity.
Simple solution - tell the damn french that no Airbus of the model in dispute will be granted landing rights in the United States. Then watch what happens.
We ignore WTO decisions against us? In November 2003, the WTO ruled against US steel tariffs. In December 2003, Bush dropped the steel tariffs. Merlin's plan to prevent illegal Airbus subsidies by denying the offending Airbus models (that would be all of them) landing rights in the US would only lead to a trade war, since the Euros would undoubtedly reciprocate and prevent Boeing aircraft from landing in Europe. We are trying to promote fair competition. The purpose of the WTO is to prevent trade wars.
WTO rules against US steel tariffs: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh120.htm
Bush drops US steel tariffs: http://www.cleveland.com/indepth/steel/index.ssf?/indepth/steel/more/1070620637245102.html
He didn't drop the tarrifs due to the WTO decision, that is patently ridiculous. It was an attempt at getting larger French support for the actions we were taking, as well as getting the right-priced steel into the US after he got the Steel Union votes for putting the Tarrifs into place and a Majority for his party. He didn't want France and Germany adding Tarrifs to our stuff in retaliation.
There are far more decisions against the US from the WTO that are totally ignored to make the logic leap that this one time the US decided to pay attention to the WTO, it is easier to follow the money and see why the decision was made and use Occam's Razor, than it is to make such a logic leap.
Yeah right. It was just a coincidence that Bush dropped the steel tariff one month after the WTO ruled against the US and just prior to the 15 December deadline imposed by the EU and others for retaliatory action against US products: "The European Union, Norway and Japan threatened to retaliate with fees on American goods if Bush did not remove the tariffs by Dec. 15." http://www.cleveland.com/indepth/steel/index.ssf?/indepth/steel/more/1070620637245102.html The retaliatory actions would have been permitted under trade laws as a consequence of the WTO ruling against America. You were wrong when you said, we ignore their decisions when it comes to decisions against us. Since the US is one of the principle exporters on the planet, it has far more to lose from ignoring the WTO (which it helped to set up) than it does from playing by the rules. If the US had ignored the WTO ruling regarding steel tariffs, then what recourse (other than trade war) would it have had regarding the Airbus dispute? The next country that the US is likely to haul before the WTO is China regarding the textile industry.
Maybe it's time for a trade war. Personally I'm confident that we'll come out ahead in the long run.
I just tend to take a more hard-nosed approach than you seem to favor. Also I don't believe that handing authority over to some "world body" does our nation any good in the long run. I freely admit that when it comes to foreign policy I'm somewhat akin to Atilla the Hun.
I don't fear a trade war with anyone except Japan or China. But even here, after a period of hardship and adjustment, it might serve our best interest. For example - much of our heavy industry capability which existed into the early 1960's is gone. It's in Japan now. If we ever get into another major conventional war, we may not be able to out-produce our enemies like we did in WWI and WWII. If Japan suddenly refused to provide us with steel, we would just have to revive our own industry - and we can do it. If China refused us textiles, our own industry would mushroom - we'd just have to pay a bit more for underwear, socks, etc. And who would suffer in the long run? The very folks who refuse to trade with us. We have one hell of a clout in the import arena and we should not be afraid to use it when it suits our purposes. We should not be the flaccid, pacifistic dumping ground for products from anywhere. We should be very particular choosing our trading partners.
There are new markets all over the place. Eastern Europe, South America, Russia, even the Middle East. We just need to get off our national ass and go out like a door to door salesman and develop new relationships and new trading partners.
I see strength in unilateral action and I see weakness in going to the WTO to whine that the froggies are not treating us fairly. Screw them. I say it's time to flex a little muscle in the world and let Chirac et al stew in their own juices for however long it takes.
After the Bourget : Airbus : 341 commands
Boeing : 146 commands.
And the first A-380 will be for Singapore Airlines
(but the new 777 - I believe it's the "name" of the new Boeing - is pretty nice .
(the new Falcon 7X from Dassault is really good too. I believe that the Boss of Budweiser commands one of it)
What an odd thing to say. You are treating a trade war as if it were a conventional war by other means. It is not. A trade war would negatively affect all of us. There would be no winner as the opportunity cost of destroying a liberal trade regime would surely outweigh any benefit we may gain from protectionism. We can not tell the WTO to fuck off and then expect the rest of the world to carry on liberalizing trade through bilateral agreements that is simply not the way the system operates.
Additionally the WTO more often then not issues decisions that come out in our favor (Fish nets in Mexico ring a bell?). Why would we want to destroy an institution that we built, that servers our (and everyone else's) interest because they occasionally make us play by our own rules.
Lastly a weak Europe is not in our interest either. European stability is essential to tackling some of the more difficult economic and political challenges to come. Specifically in the Middle East, and China. A weak Europe would only further tax an over taxed American apparatus.
Separate names with a comma.