Obama imposes tarriffs on Chinese tires

[boooeee]

Actually, Had he announced a policy that sub-standard (and dangerous) goods, from China (Everything they export is sub-standard and/or dangerous, from meds to pet foods to dishes to tires) or elsewhere, would be banned or highly taxed, it might have swayed me to vote FOR him.

Yeah. Like my piece of crap iPod I've been using for the past four years. Ban them. Ban them, I say.

 

[Corsair 115]

How is this a legal reason to impose a tariff?

The U.S. has demonstrated a track record for ignoring and/or violating trade agreements and laws whenever domestic politics makes it expedient to do so. Look no further than Canadian softwood lumber imports for a shining example under the previous administration.

 

[rwguinn]

Yeah. Like my piece of crap iPod I've been using for the past four years. Ban them. Ban them, I say.

Did you check it for Lead-based paint?
They are GOOD at that. They LIKE lead--especially in their exports.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-china-tires12-2009sep12,0,7273504.story

Why?

Barrack is a smart guy. Why is he doing this? Is it because he knows that Americans are idiots, and will support anything that "protects American jobs?"

Bad, bad idea.

Good, good idea to look for an erroneous premise when the conclusion is faulty but th logic is good...

Barrack is a smart guy.
Barrack is a smart guy.
Barrack is a smart guy.
Barrack is a smart guy.
Barrack is a smart guy.
Barrack is a smart guy.
Barrack is a smart guy.

Where could the faulty premise be?

 

[WildCat]

The funny part:

It will take many months for producers in places like Indonesia and Brazil to pick up the slack.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125288420566007227.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[Puppycow]

Protectionism is a bad idea

Steel Tariffs Appear to Have Backfired on Bush
Move to Aid Mills and Gain Votes in 2 States Is Called Political and Economic Mistake

By Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 19, 2003; Page A01

In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.

Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users. Politically, the strategy failed to produce union endorsements and appears to have hurt Bush with workers in Michigan and Tennessee -- also states at the heart of his 2004 strategy.

"They tried to play politics, and it looked like it was working for a while," said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist with ties to the administration. "But now it's fallen apart."

The issue is being brought to a boil by the scheduled release today of voluminous progress reports by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC's mid-session assessment of the three-year tariff program's impact will examine not only the tariffs' effects on the steel industry but also on the hard-pressed manufacturers that shape steel into products.

White House officials said Bush will not make a decision until he has digested the ITC reports. But his top economic advisers have united to recommend that the tariffs be lifted or substantially rolled back this fall, and several administration officials said it is likely he will go along. The retreat would roil the political and economic landscape of the Rust Belt, where both parties expect the presidential election to be won and lost.

Then again, Bush did win West Virginia and Ohio in 2004, although he lost Pennsylvania, but it was enough to reelect him, so maybe it had the intended effect after all.

 

[Puppycow]

How is this a legal reason to impose a tariff?

Because even if it is illegal, it takes about a year for the WTO to make a ruling.

U.S. Tariffs on Steel Are Illegal, World Trade Organization Says

By ELIZABETH BECKER
Published: Tuesday, November 11, 2003

The World Trade Organization ruled on Monday that steel tariffs imposed by President Bush last year were illegal, clearing the way for the European Union to impose more than $2 billion of sanctions on imports from the United States unless Washington quickly drops the duties.

The final decision by a W.T.O. panel, which was widely anticipated and has been discussed for weeks at the White House, puts Mr. Bush in a difficult spot. As an election looms, he must choose between continuing to help the steel industry -- which could bolster his electoral prospects in crucial industrial states -- or respecting international trade laws and increasing his chances of winning new regional and global trade agreements.

Lifting the tariffs would also please American automakers and other steel-consuming industries, which have complained that the tariffs have increased their costs.

And, within a month Bush decided to drop the tariffs. Even earning "praise" for stopping breaking the law.

Friday, 5 December, 2003, 09:21 GMT
Europe praises Bush steel repeal

Governments and companies in Asia and Europe have welcomed President George W Bush's decision to repeal US tariffs on imported steel.

The move was trumpeted as a victory for free trade and will halt an escalating trade war of tit-for-tat tariffs.

The European Union announced that its sanctions, to be imposed against the US and worth $2.2bn, will be dropped.

Analysts said China, which also has tariffs on other goods, may now be willing to drop retaliatory measures.

Purpose achieved

Both Japan and South Korea said they welcomed the move and hoped that exports would recover in the coming year.

The end of the US sanctions comes after a World Trade Organisation decision that the duties, imposed in March 2002, are illegal.

Mr Bush had justified them by saying foreign steel firms were driving US firms out of business with unfair competition and government subsidies.

So even if the WTO rules against it, they can probably get a year or so of tariffs out of this. Of course, the Chinese might retaliate, but they are not totally innocent of protectionism either. They especially like to keep unwanted information out of China. They also keep their currency artificially cheap.

 

[Puppycow]

China strikes back

BEIJING -- China indicated Sunday it would restrict U.S. imports of chicken and auto products after Washington's move to slap punitive sanctions on Chinese tire imports, raising tensions in a trade dispute ahead of two planned meetings between the countries' leaders.

Many observers in China say ties between the nations should remain unharmed, noting that China's measures could limit imports in two areas that it already tightly controls -- and thus might not have a huge effect on U.S. exports. But the measures add to worries about trade protectionism amid rising unemployment around the world.

Only a symbolic retaliation? A "measured response"?

 

[coalesce]

It the best way to avoid banning their import entirely, which would be justified, considering they can't even make a valve stem properly

Hey, my 2007 Ford Fusion had a recall notice about cracked valve stems and I had them replaced a couple of months ago.

It's still the best car I've ever owned.

Michael

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It the best way to avoid banning their import entirely, which would be justified, considering they can't even make a valve stem properly

37 valve stems in all of 2007 on Ford vehicles = tariff on all tires out of China? 37 valve stems which do not appear to have caused any accidents, but have caused damage to the associated tire, only?


There may be some legally valid reason for the decision -- such as China's government subsidizing the tire industry unfairly -- but I don't think this item reaches the level of nationwide tarrif on tires. None of the brief articles I have seen have given any reason for the move, apart from mentions of the unions requesting it. If that is the reason we are launching ourselves into a potential trade war at one of the worst times to pick a fight (and with a bad choice of opponent, given the amount of trade and how many T-Bills China holds), then I'll be disappointed.

 

[rwguinn]

37 valve stems in all of 2007 on Ford vehicles = tariff on all tires out of China? 37 valve stems which do not appear to have caused any accidents, but have caused damage to the associated tire, only?


There may be some legally valid reason for the decision -- such as China's government subsidizing the tire industry unfairly -- but I don't think this item reaches the level of nationwide tarrif on tires. None of the brief articles I have seen have given any reason for the move, apart from mentions of the unions requesting it. If that is the reason we are launching ourselves into a potential trade war at one of the worst times to pick a fight (and with a bad choice of opponent, given the amount of trade and how many T-Bills China holds), then I'll be disappointed.

Considering China's history with all the contaminants they put in everything (remember the toys and pet food, not to mention all the baby formula/milk products), and what it has cost US and world-wide industry, coupled with their cavalier attitude toward copyrights and patents, I have no trouble with punitive measures against them.
You want to defend the ******** they put out, go ahead. Some folks think we ought to just let everybody run over us, just so we don't look bad.

 

[sowellfan]

Considering China's history with all the contaminants they put in everything (remember the toys and pet food, not to mention all the baby formula/milk products), and what it has cost US and world-wide industry, coupled with their cavalier attitude toward copyrights and patents, I have no trouble with punitive measures against them.
You want to defend the ******** they put out, go ahead. Some folks think we ought to just let everybody run over us, just so we don't look bad.

I'm no fan of China's government, or their attitude towards copyrights and patents, but none of these things have been mentioned by the Obama administration. Similarly, they haven't said that the tires coming from China are potentially unsafe. This tire tariff does not address safety of food products, does not address the problem with copyrights and patents, does not address "unsafe valve stems", etc. It's purely a protectionist measure, and nothing I've seen indicates different.

Now, if Obama decides to start penalizing China in very targeted ways to address this problem of copyrights and patents, or unsafe food products, I'd be all for it. Until then, let's not pretend that this measure addresses those issues.

 

[lomiller]

China’s policy of holding its currency artificially low is questionable. As long as the tariffs are specifically aimed at China there is a reasonable chance they will hold up in the WTO. There is also the issue of the lack of openness of the Chinese market to foreign products and companies. While I support free trade in general, I think actions against China are long overdue.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Considering China's history with all the contaminants they put in everything (remember the toys and pet food, not to mention all the baby formula/milk products), and what it has cost US and world-wide industry, coupled with their cavalier attitude toward copyrights and patents, I have no trouble with punitive measures against them.
You want to defend the ******** they put out, go ahead. Some folks think we ought to just let everybody run over us, just so we don't look bad.

Questioning the reasoning behind this decision -- which you speculate about, but has not been given to us -- falls far short of defending the ******** anyone is putting out.

If that is truly the reason, I would have expected to have heard something about that. Maybe if it is the reason, we should start with bans (or tarrifs, although tarrifs for serious safety concerns seems a bit odd as well) on, say: children's toys, baby formula, or materials where actual issues are known about or can be shown, as opposed to completely different industries where no problems have, to my knowledge, been reported on.

But I am sure there is some evidence that the Chinese tire industry is putting out dangerous products to back this position up. Right?

 

[YoPopa]

China’s policy of holding its currency artificially low is questionable.

Are there any modern currencies which are not either artificially low, artificially high, or artificially Goldilocks?

 

[Corsair 115]

Some folks think we ought to just let everybody run over us, just so we don't look bad.

The problem with that attitude is that it has been applied by American administrations in situations where it was not warranted, and resulted in the U.S. violating the terms of agreements it pledged to follow. Again, see: softwood lumber.

One may well ask what the point is of having a trade agreement with the United States is if the country feels free to ignore the agreement due to domestic American political concerns.

 

[GreyICE]

Are there any modern currencies which are not either artificially low, artificially high, or artificially Goldilocks?

I think you have failed to grasp the extent to which China manipulates currency. Most modern economies choose not to directly control currency exchange rates, China does.

 

[sowellfan]

I think you have failed to grasp the extent to which China manipulates currency. Most modern economies choose not to directly control currency exchange rates, China does.

Even if that were the problem, then the way to address it would be to actually say that we (the U.S.A.) have a big problem with Chinese currency policy, and explain how it is affecting the trade situation, and then explain what we wish China to do about it, and what the consequences would be of their not adjusting policy in the way that we wish.

Again, though, lots of people in this thread are busy speculating about the multitude of crimes that the Chinese govt. perpetrates, and they're trying to somehow link those activities to this tire tariff - but these contentions are in no way supported by the Obama administrations public statements about this issue. Instead, the explanation is all about, "They're selling too many tires over here, and our American workers can't make them as cheaply - so we're going to slap a 35% tariff on those evil Chinese tires, to save those 6,000 jobs."

 

[Yoink]

You people are aware that the USITC has been holding public hearings on this issue for months, right? You can download pdfs of the testimony on the USITC website, if you're interested in the pro and con arguments. The USITC recommended far more severe tariffs than Obama proposed (although there was a minority report from the USITC which recommended no tariffs and targeted support to US tiremakers instead).

You might also be interested that the current chair of the USITC, Shara Aronoff, who enthusiastically endorsed the recommendation for high tariffs (over 50%) was appointed by none other than George W. Bush.

Lastly, none of the arguments in favor of the tariffs had to do with safety of the products or the valuation of Chinese currency.

Back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

 

[YoPopa]

Even if that were the problem, then the way to address it would be to actually say that we (the U.S.A.) have a big problem with Chinese currency policy, and explain how it is affecting the trade situation, and then explain what we wish China to do about it, and what the consequences would be of their not adjusting policy in the way that we wish.

Again, though, lots of people in this thread are busy speculating about the multitude of crimes that the Chinese govt. perpetrates, and they're trying to somehow link those activities to this tire tariff - but these contentions are in no way supported by the Obama administrations public statements about this issue. Instead, the explanation is all about, "They're selling too many tires over here, and our American workers can't make them as cheaply - so we're going to slap a 35% tariff on those evil Chinese tires, to save those 6,000 jobs."

sowellfan, you must be a Thomas Sowell fan. 4 posts in a year.
One of the things I admire most about Thomas Sowell is his ability to use the fewest words possible to convey the greatest wisdom. He might also add to this discussion a point about how protectionism directly hurts US consumers by forcing them to pay higher prices and when competition is effectively diminished then quality can start to decline as well.