Europe Eyeing US Auto Industry Aid

[DogPoundPup]

Source: Voice of America News

European officials are taking a close look at how the United States is helping its ailing auto industry.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she wants to make sure aid to the U.S. auto industry will not put Europe's own auto companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Merkel's comments came at a news conference Tuesday in the northern Italian city of Trieste with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Carmakers in both the U.S. and Europe have been asking for government help, with French automaker Peugeot, Europe's second largest car company, warning the global auto industry is in danger of a collapse.

Read more: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-18-voa19.cfm

[dipsydoodle]

1. This was mentioned at the recent trade meeting

Would appear to go against an agreement to which the USA is a signatory.

[fasttense]

2. If the US auto industry disappears Germany, England and Japan would make out like bandits.

The US would suffer but foreign made autos would flood the market.

They are watching us because the US is the largest consumers auto market in the world and they want to take over our markets. They protect their auto industries but they want the US to continue to support foreign manufacturers. They know the US is shooting themselves in the foot by allowing cheaper autos into US markets.

Why do we allow our US jobs to disappear while encouraging sales of foreign vehicles?

By the way, these trade agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA, Are Not treaties. They are simply agreements.

[arcos]

3. In the US they are simply agreements...

In lots of other countries, they are considered treaties, and are required to be approved in the same manner as treaties.

[Ravachol]

4. AFAIK...

A trade agreement like NAFTA is a treaty when it comes to economical affairs. Your government signed it.

I'm not in favor of NAFTA nor any other free trade treaty but, more often than that, it's the U.S government that is doing the lecturing to other governments, reminding them that "the freer the market, the freer the people", even if it means that U.S companies will necessarily beat local companies, as they are bigger and you're paid much less than in many european countries, for example. It's been that way in Canada-USA affairs for a long time.

Also, it is a myth to believe (I'm speaking of the post above yours) that what separates U.S carmakers and european/asian carmakers is that their is subsidized. It was true for Toyota for awhile but that's about it. Now, on their own, they're as competitive as Ford, GM or Chrysler and even much more so since a decade.

What the German chancellor is saying, here, is simply: don't give your auto industry an unfair edge by bailing them out or will we have to do the same.

[pampango]

8. Whether it's NAFTA, GATT, NATO or Kyoto, don't sign it unless you plan on living up to it.

Then live up to it, unless and until you get it renegotiated or formally withdraw from it.

My understanding is that many (most/all?) of the countries who signed the Kyoto Treaty have not lived up to its provisions or met the goals that they agreed to. (Of course, Bush kept us out of Kyoto altogether, but though I wish we were a signatory, I would rather not join than join and then ignore its provisions.) When (and I hope it is just a matter of time with Obama) the US does join the Kyoto Treaty, I hope we do so with the commitment to live up to its provisions rather than as a "feel good" maneuver.

Likewise, if we have agreements with Canada, Europe, Japan, etc regarding the trade in autos (tariffs, quotas, government subsidies, taxes, etc.), all parties should live up to them until it is renegotiated or terminated. The alternative is to ignore the rest of the world and do whatever we want to do, but we've just had 8 years of that.

[arcos]

10. Don't assume I'm American...

Because I'm not. :)

In Costa Rica, my country, free trade "agreements" ARE treaties. It is really unfair because the implementation act in the US clearly states that CAFTA, for example, is below the law. However, here it is ranked above the law, and no laws should contradict it.

[Flagg]

6. England doesn't really have an auto-industry to speak of anymore

You should replace England with France

[acmavm]

5. Lord knows Anglela, our first concern should be foreign auto

manufacturers.

:sarcasm:

[nxylas]

7. Ours isn't, but hers is

As Chancellor of Germany, her first concern is German corporate interests, just as the US President's first concern is American corporate interests. And I'm sure concern for ordinary German and American workers is somewhere on their respective lists too. Maybe.

[acmavm]

9. I do have the smarts to figure out where her interest lie, believe

me. And I don't fucking care. European cars have had more than their share of the market, and yes, that is because they've been better cars.

BUT, we need to change and we need to overtake foreign car makers in sales here.

[sentelle]

11. so, what have we learned?

Americans are not buying US cars, and are not buying imports either. Everyone is hurting. The bailout of the 'big 3' will not stop the big sucking sound of US jobs leaving the US for GM plants in places like Russia. It may be that any money we give them will be sent to fund the St. Petersburg factory. So, the question is: what is the reason we are given to give the big 3 money? Unless something different happens, people will still not buy (US or import) and the jobs will still leave the US. Are we still doing supply side economics, where you give the money to the rich, so that they will stimulate the economy? Let me tell you the flaw to supply side: most of the rich, are rich for a reason: they are smart, and know how to save money. In a bad economy, the rich, when given money, save it. Saved money doesn't stimulate the economy, and doesn't 'trickle down'. You can't expect people who know how to save money, and are seeing tough times ahead, to spend more than they earn. If they did, they would no longer be rich.