• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama imposes tarriffs on Chinese tires

The decision came after the U.S. International Trade Commission, a federal agency, determined that a surge of Chinese-made tires had disrupted the domestic market and cost thousands of jobs in the U.S.
Click to expand...
How is this a legal reason to impose a tariff?
 
We bought some Chinese tires (Sunny). Had no choice at the time, as nothing else was available and we were required by law to get snow tires. Even though the roads are almost always dry here in Montreal since they do a good job with snow removal.

ETA: I don't like tarriffs.
 
Last edited:
For perhaps the first time ever, I think I agree with the conservatives about Obama.

This is very likely a political move to placate pro-union Blue dog democrats to get their support for health care. It's ugly and it's hypocritical and it may hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways.
 
Cavemonster said:
For perhaps the first time ever, I think I agree with the conservatives about Obama.

This is very likely a political move to placate pro-union Blue dog democrats to get their support for health care. It's ugly and it's hypocritical and it may hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the brave new world of "smart diplomacy" Obama promised us on the campaign trail.

Here's the thing, though: If someone had been able to show you, before the 2008 election, that Obama was likely to "hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways", but was also likely to enact the health care reform bill he described in his speech to Congress this week, would you have voted for him?

Would your answer change based on whether or not you thought his claim that most of the reform's cost could be paid for by reducing wastefulness in Medicare and Medicaid?
 
Cavemonster said:
For perhaps the first time ever, I think I agree with the conservatives about Obama.

This is very likely a political move to placate pro-union Blue dog democrats to get their support for health care. It's ugly and it's hypocritical and it may hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Welcome to the brave new world of "smart diplomacy" Obama promised us on the campaign trail.

Here's the thing, though: If someone had been able to show you, before the 2008 election, that Obama was likely to "hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways", but was also likely to enact the health care reform bill he described in his speech to Congress this week, would you have voted for him?

Would your answer change based on whether or not you thought his claim that most of the reform's cost could be paid for by reducing wastefulness in Medicare and Medicaid?
Click to expand...
It the best way to avoid banning their import entirely, which would be justified, considering they can't even make a valve stem properly
...INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL DEFECTS
IN SOME SNAP-IN TIRE VALVES MANUFACTURED FOR DILL AIR CONTROLS
PRODUCTS BY TOPSEAL AUTO-PARTS, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE SHANGHAI BAOLONG AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION. DURING THE INVESTIGATION ODI BECAME AWARE THAT TOPSEAL IS ALSO THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER OF SNAP-IN LOW PRESSURE VALVE STEMS FOR SOME FORD MOTOR COMPANY VEHICLES. ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 37 COMPLAINTS OF CRACKED AND LEAKING TIRE VALVES IN MY 2007 FORD VEHICLES
Click to expand...
 
rwguinn said:
It the best way to avoid banning their import entirely, which would be justified, considering they can't even make a valve stem properly
Click to expand...
Really? The best way? Out of all possible ways?

I mean, does it even really solve the problem? Bad valve stems are still entering the country, right? Only, they're even more expensive now. So anybody that does buy them is getting an even worse deal than before. And we're antagonizing an important trading partner and growing global power. Is this really the best possible tradeoff you can think of?

And--to get back to the question I asked but you somehow forgot to answer--if Barack Obama had announced during the campaign that he intended to impose tariffs on bad Chinese valve stems, and credible analysis indicated that such a policy would probably "hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways", would you still have voted for him?
 
theprestige said:
Really? The best way? Out of all possible ways?

I mean, does it even really solve the problem? Bad valve stems are still entering the country, right? Only, they're even more expensive now. So anybody that does buy them is getting an even worse deal than before. And we're antagonizing an important trading partner and growing global power. Is this really the best possible tradeoff you can think of?

And--to get back to the question I asked but you somehow forgot to answer--if Barack Obama had announced during the campaign that he intended to impose tariffs on bad Chinese valve stems, and credible analysis indicated that such a policy would probably "hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways", would you still have voted for him?
Click to expand...
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.
 
theprestige said:
Really? The best way? Out of all possible ways?

I mean, does it even really solve the problem? Bad valve stems are still entering the country, right? Only, they're even more expensive now. So anybody that does buy them is getting an even worse deal than before. And we're antagonizing an important trading partner and growing global power. Is this really the best possible tradeoff you can think of?

And--to get back to the question I asked but you somehow forgot to answer--if Barack Obama had announced during the campaign that he intended to impose tariffs on bad Chinese valve stems, and credible analysis indicated that such a policy would probably "hurt our relationship with China in dangerous ways", would you still have voted for him?
Click to expand...

Exactly. His argument doesn't make any sense.

It's not a measure to protect consumers. It's about protectionism.
 
It's a stupid idea that I have no comprehension why Obama is embracing.

It's not like anti-dumping tariffs, China is clearly just making things cheaper. That's what international trade is all about. So we lose some tire makers.

The way to do quality control, fyi, is simply to do quality control. Ban the tires if they don't meet the standards. People will make standard-meeting tires.
 
rwguinn said:
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.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
Francesca R said:
Anti dumping tariffs are overwhelmingly policies that protect unaccountable special interests at the expense of society too.
Click to expand...

Anti-dumping tariffs are good because of the same reason anti-dumping laws are - for businesses with high barriers to entry, dumping is a very attractive way to deal with new competitors.
 
It would be interesting to know whether the tyres (UK spelling :)) were actually of chinese design or if they were just rip-offs of Firestone or Bridgestone patents.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom