Lessons of Steel

WSJ.com ^ | 12/2/03 | WSJ Op-Ed

[Texas_Dawg]

White House sources are leaking what has been rumored for weeks, which is that President Bush will soon reverse his worst economic decision and repeal his March 2002 steel tariffs. Markets reacted well to that news yesterday, but the important question is what lessons the Administration has learned from this protectionist fiasco.

[Texas_Dawg]

Economic freedom is a beautiful thing.

The lesson of the steel tariffs is that protectionism always backfires, so from now on Mr. Bush might as well stick with and defend his free-trade principles.

Amen. GWB needs to ignore the angry, anti-American Neanderthals that reside at FR and the AFL-CIO.

[Texas_Dawg]

We're all doomed.

[Joe Bonforte]

GWB needs to ignore the angry, anti-American Neanderthals that reside at FR and the AFL-CIO.

Ain't it the truth. I get more sheer nonsense from the free-trade bashers than any other group on FR. It's always "my cousin lost a job because of NAFTA, therefore NAFTA costs Americans jobs", or some such. Showing rising employment and income numbers since NAFTA started is pointless - they simply talk about a friend's dentist's brother-in-law's neighbor who lost a job somewhere. And then accuse me of being heartless and uncaring. (A standard tactic of leftists, BTW, and it certainly steams them when I point that out.)

[rdb3]

And then accuse me of being heartless and uncaring. (A standard tactic of leftists, BTW, and it certainly steams them when I point that out.)

Don't forget the overt class-warfare that comes from them as well. Yet another leftist tactic.

[presidio9]

Don't forget the overt class-warfare that comes from them as well. Yet another leftist tactic.

Will nobody speak out in defense of Chinese slave laborers?

[citizenK]

I totally agree with this WSJ editorial. They are correct in pointing out how the actions of the US President set the tone for the entire world with respect to trade.

Protectionist tariffs always benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Using protectionist tariffs is the worst policy reaction to the problem of dumping. The whole purpose of trade agreements is to allow countries some remedy other than tariffs to rectify dumping violations. If some countries did indeed dump steel into our markets, mechanisms within existing trade agreements can be used to compensate US parties damaged by the dumping. In fact, the US government is quite adept at using the details of trade agreements to the advantage of US industries. In the case of steel, the President chose the blatent political action as payback to the union constituency he courted in the 2000 election. And this is another reason protectionist tariffs are bad -- they corrupt our political system by providing politicians the opportunity to favor particular constituencies at the cost of the greater economy.

[Texas_Dawg]

Will nobody speak out in defense of Chinese slave laborers?

Yes. I'm sure Chinese "slave laborers" are just screaming for American and international companies to leave so they can go back to working in the government factories.

[Texas_Dawg]

Ain't it the truth. I get more sheer nonsense from the free-trade bashers than any other group on FR. It's always "my cousin lost a job because of NAFTA, therefore NAFTA costs Americans jobs", or some such. Showing rising employment and income numbers since NAFTA started is pointless - they simply talk about a friend's dentist's brother-in-law's neighbor who lost a job somewhere. And then accuse me of being heartless and uncaring. (A standard tactic of leftists, BTW, and it certainly steams them when I point that out.)

Right on, Joe. It's good to seem some common sense around here from a true conservative like you.

The only difference in the fringe, anti-economic-freedom goons here and their counterparts on the Left are who they choose to help with their federal government totalitarianism. Neither one are any kind of conservative though.

[HiTech RedNeck]

By the way, yesterday's blowout November report from the Institute for Supply Management shows that U.S. manufacturing is rebounding nearly across the board. The survey leaped to 62.8 from 57 in October, with a reading above 50 a sign of expansion. Even the ISM manufacturing employment survey popped to 51 from 47.7, suggesting net job creation. This will help Mr. Bush in the swing industrial states of the Midwest far more than will continuing steel protection.

Could anyone please clarify whether "US Manufacturing" means onshore or also offshore "US in name only" employing the locals. Before trumpeting the job creation, how about giving us a clue who will get the jobs.