To: Wyatt's Torch;Mr.Bird
What's even sadder to me is that I have a brother who works for a US steel maker but has to travel overseas to assist with the setup and design of plants in foreign countries because the federal government and enviro-whacko's have made it cost prohibitive for plants in the US to be either built or upgraded and modernized.
There are only two options. Either make it so that the US companies can build plants here that can compete with the foreign plants or apply tariffs.
One generates revenue for the government and the other doesn't. Which did you really think they'd do?
7 posted on 3/5/02 8:17 AM Pacific by Bikers4Bush
because the federal government and enviro-whacko's have made it cost prohibitive for plants in the US to be either built or upgraded and modernized
And W doesn't have the nuts to change this. This is one issue that he should be preaching from the bully pulpit (in the same breath as a call for drilling in ANWR)
The fact that the steel industry is not competitive is because of decades of protectionism and a heavily unionized workforce that is retiring and drawing pensions. Hard to compete when your unionized workers are making $40 an hour. For another example look at India's auto industry....they have cheap labor and lax environmental standards, but you don't see too many Indian cars on American roads do you? It's because that industry, like America's steel industry, has been protected against competition for decades.
10 posted on 3/5/02 8:23 AM Pacific by Bikers4Bush
how do you feel about the Bush administration's shameless decision to go back on everything they've said about being free marketeers and impose punitive tariffs on imported steel?
It's a step in the right direction, but still inadequate.
The ideal solution is a relatively low, across-the-board revenue tariff of 10-20% on ALL imported goods from ALL foreign countries.
"Targeted" tariffs have the disadvantage of providing loopholes and, as others will be quick to point out, the potential to hurt other domestic industries.
A prime example is our failed embargo on the importation of Cuban goods. Cuban sugar has been routinely imported to the U.S. through the back door: Canada. Cuban sugar is shipped to Canada where it is dissolved in molasass. "Canadian" molasass is then legally imported to the U.S. where the sugar is easily refined back out. The leftover molasass is then exported back to Canada where the cycle is repeated. Large sugar-users (such as candy makers) are also closing their domestic factories and moving to Canada where they can legally use Cuban sugar, then import it as candy to the U.S.
An across-the-board revenue tariff of 10-20% would circumvent this type of abuse. Additionally, the revenue could be used to offset a major reduction or elimination of the corporate income tax, providing domestic producers a more "level playing field". (A Proposal to Abolish the Corporate Income Tax)
From a historical perspective, a revenue tariff of 10-20% is NOT excessive:
If I had the time I would plot the historical relationship between tariff rates and GDP (U.S. or world) or GDP growth. Notice the very high tariff rates right before the Great Depression (hmmmmmm.....interesting). And the high rates of growth (and low tariffs) we now enjoy and have enjoyed over the past few decades. Look also at comparisons of per capita GDP versus trade barriers by country.
Protectionists fail to appreciate that protectionism makes everything cost more......think the computer you are typing on would be so cheap if it weren't for relatively free trade? try buying a Dell in North Korea or Cuba, or a beer in tokyo.
22 posted on 3/5/02 9:02 AM Pacific by RedhairRedhair
This is the right move. Its not protectionism or subsidy, but a reaction to illegal dumping, to foreign-gov't subsidized predatory pricing. This isn't a restriction of the free market, but rather an attempt to stop the circumvention of the free market by foreign governments.
Another word for dumping is price war....which is a fact of life in a competitive economy Remember that these companies who are selling steel below cost are losing money, so they can't do it forever.....and if they could, more power to them. NEWS FLASH - dumping is great for consumers, and lower steel prices means everything is cheaper, helping the economy grow faster and making everyone better off. If toyota was dumping new 4-runners for $5,000, would I complain? hell no I'd go buy one.
23 posted on 3/5/02 9:07 AM Pacific by Diddle E. Squat
To: KayEyeDoubleDee
I'm a free-marketer too, but I insist on it being a two-way street.
Up until 2 years ago, I was in management in a Jap auto supplier company located in Tennessee. I saw every day the ways in which Japanese companies worked to evade U.S. laws on everything from income taxes and property taxes to import duties and fair pricing of imported goods. To the Japanese, you're only "wrong" if you get caught.
Steel is a perfect example: we bought Japanese steel from Japanese companies at a considerably lower price than our own parent company could buy the same steel in Japan.
That, gentlemen, is called dumping.
How was this done? The Japanese government provides their steel companies with massive tax breaks, because they know the importance to national security of having a viable steel industry.
And because they don't blindly believe everything the Wall Street Journal writes.
25 posted on 3/5/02 9:15 AM Pacific by Redbob
I will close with this: the fact that the U.S. has historically favored free trade has given us the most dynamic economy in the world, and thanks to that I'm sitting here typing this message while getting paid for it rather than working in a coal mine or farming potatos. If you think protectionism is good for jobs or economic growth you should go visit Russia, India, North Korea, or Cuba.
