Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama Opts for Import Tariffs on Chinese Tires

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 08:42 PM
Original message
President Obama Opts for Import Tariffs on Chinese Tires
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957.html

In one of his first major decisions on trade policy, President Obama opted Friday to impose a tariff on tires from China in response to complaints that a surge of imports had undermined the U.S. industry and contributed to the loss of more than 5,000 jobs.

The tariff will amount to 35 percent the first year, 30 percent the second year and 25 percent the third year. A federal trade panel had recommended a levy of 55 percent.

The decision represents a victory for the United Steelworkers union, which had filed the trade complaint under a section of U.S. law intended specifically to protect U.S. manufacturers from Chinese imports. China's government, tire importers and some U.S. tire manufacturers with plants overseas had strenuously objected to the measure.

"The President decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case," the White House said in a statement released Friday night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why isn't this illegal? Is it?
Regardless, its a nice step in the right direction. Im just curious about fallout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I think it is GREAT Obama does not "Roll Over" for the WalMart Economy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I general favor tarrifs. This is fine by me
Edited on Fri Sep-11-09 09:49 PM by Oregone
(as long as they are fair)

Itd be nice to see some over-arching policy and direction to renegotiate (or abolish) the trade agreements though, for future reference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconocrastic Donating Member (627 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was a protectionist act signed by Herbert Hoover, which raised tariffs on 20,000 imported goods into the United States. Hoover signed the law into law on June 17, 1930. The act is thought to have been a major factor of causing the 1930's Great Depression, and thus Herbert Hoover was largely blamed for the crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm well aware of that
It wasn't sound trade policy. It was protectionism via punitive tariffs. Not all tariff systems have historically led to depressions at all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconocrastic Donating Member (627 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. US tyre duties spark clash
US tyre duties spark clash

By Geoff Dyer in Shanghai and Tom Braithwaite in Washington

Published: September 13 2009 06:53 | Last updated: September 13 2009 19:23

A full-blown trade row erupted on Sunday night between the US and China after Beijing accused Washington of “rampant protectionism” for imposing heavy duties on imported Chinese tyres and threatened action against imports of US poultry and vehicles.

Trade relations between two of the world’s biggest economies deteriorated after Barack Obama, US president, signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff.

In his first big test on world trade since taking office in January, Mr Obama sided with America’s trade unions, which have complained that a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers.

Chen Deming, China’s minister of commerce, condemned the decision, saying that it “sends the wrong signal to the world” at a time when Washington and Beijing should be co-operating to deal with the worst economic and financial crisis in decades.

“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the United States government made at the G20 financial summit.”

China said it would now investigate imports of US poultry and vehicles, responding to complaints from domestic companies.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f67c6fe6-a024-11de-b9ef-00144feabdc0.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Your Wrong - its like equating Saddam Hussein with 911
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 05:40 AM by FreakinDJ
Countries attempting to return to the Gold Standard by using Deflationary policies (just as China manipulates its currency/economy to force HIGH export levels) had decreased exports/imports PRIOR (1914) to the crash of 1929

By 1914, most developed countries had adopted the gold standard with a fixed exchange rate between the national currency and gold—and therefore between national currencies. In World War I, European nations went off the gold standard to print money, and the resulting price inflation drove large amounts of the world’s gold to banks in the United States. The United States remained on the gold standard without altering the gold value of the dollar. Investors and others who held gold sent their gold to the United States, where gold maintained its value as a safe and sound investment. At the end of World War I, a few countries, most notably the United States, continued on the gold standard while others temporarily adopted floating exchange rates. The world’s international finance center had shifted from London to New York City, and the British were anxious to regain their old status. Some countries pledged to return to the gold standard with devalued currencies, while others followed the British lead and aimed to return to gold at prewar exchange rates.

This was not possible, however. Too much money had been created during the war to allow a return to the gold standard without either large currency devaluations or price deflations. In addition, the U.S. gold stock had doubled to about 40 percent of the world’s monetary gold. There simply was not enough monetary gold in the rest of the world to support the countries’ currencies at the existing exchange rates. As a result, the leading nations established a gold exchange system whereby the governments of the United States and Great Britain would be willing, at all times, to redeem the dollar and the pound for gold, and other countries would hold much of their international reserves in British pounds or U.S. dollars.

The demand for gold increased as countries returned to the gold standard. Because the franc was undervalued when France returned to the gold standard in June 1928, France began to receive gold inflows. The undervalued franc made French exports less expensive in foreign countries’ currencies and made foreign imports into France more expensive in francs. As French exports rose and French imports fell, their international accounts were balanced by gold shipped to France. France’s government, contrary to the tenets of the gold standard, did not use these inflows to expand its money supply. In 1928, the Federal Reserve System raised its discount rate—that is, the rate it charged on loans to member banks—in order to raise interest rates in the United States, which would stem the outflow of American gold and dampen the booming stock market. As a result, the United States began to receive shipments of gold. By 1929, as countries around the world lost gold to France and the United States, these countries’ governments initiated deflationary policies to stem their gold outflows and remain on the gold standard. These deflationary policies were designed to restrict economic activity and reduce price levels, and that is exactly what they did. Thus began the worldwide Great Depression.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html


Using Freedman's Trickle down theories are what has DIRECTLY caused the current economic decline the world is experiencing. Addiditionally prior to the crash of 1929, new developements in Manufacturing Technology and Agriculture led to Over-production in the USA and the South America. A lack of oversight in the Securities Exchange allowed manufacturing facilities to stock pile their over production and place it on their books as "Assets"

Now we have American manufacturing inhibited by China's ability to manipulate and control the price and flow of raw materials to the American manufacturing sector. The addition of a Manufacturing Czar is to "Head Off" the impending demize of the World's High Tech Manufacturing China is currently threatening

World faces hi-tech crunch as China eyes ban on rare metal exports


Beijing is drawing up plans to prohibit or restrict exports of rare earth metals that are produced only in China and play a vital role in cutting edge technology, from hybrid cars and catalytic converters, to superconductors, and precision-guided weapons.

A draft report by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium. Other metals such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum will be restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year, far below global needs.

China mines over 95pc of the world’s rare earth minerals, mostly in Inner Mongolia. The move to hoard reserves is the clearest sign to date that the global struggle for diminishing resources is shifting into a new phase. Countries may find it hard to obtain key materials at any price.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6082464/World-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as-China-eyes-ban-on-rare-metal-exports.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. It's debatable what factor Smoot-Hawley was in causing the Depression.
It passed the House in 1928, but didn't get through the Senate until 1930 when it was signed by Hoover. Some argue that foreign tariff retaliation started when it passed the House because other countries thought they could see what was coming.

But there were so many other economic problems at the time that it's hard me to consider it a "major factor" in causing the Depression. What is true, though, is that FDR didn't like Smoot-Hawley, campaigned against it in 1932, and dismantled it in the years after he became president using bilateral trade deals. Smoot-Hawley may not have been a major factor in causing the Depression, but FDR thought it was a bad law that would not help end the Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's kind of iffy putting your foot down with the country to whom we owe Billions $$. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Good point. Otherwise, the tariff is a good idea, for now, IMO. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. Takes courage, that's for sure. But that's something Obama seems to have plenty of.
(I know, I know - there's a thin line between courage and foolishness.) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. If their tires are anything like their screws and other hardware items...
Thank you, Mr. President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. or their
toys,
cat food,
steel,
human food,
baby items,
etc...

they have little restrictions, and yet, they've been allowed to pump in their poison!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cutlassmama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. they are n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
12. Chinese tires are shit.
I had a blowout just as I was getting off I-95.


What is your life worth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
13. Found a story yesterday that thought this tariff is good for trade, not protectionist.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc5a3610-9e3c-11de-b0aa-00144feabdc0.html

The orthodox free-trade view of most pundits holds that if Mr Obama accepts the recommendation he will fail the free-trade test. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. Not to accept the tariff recommendation would be a severe blow to open trade and globalisation as well as to America’s future economic health.

The conventional view is based on the notion that free trade is always a win-win proposition and that our trade with China fits the conditions of the traditional free-trade model. These include the assumptions that the markets are perfectly competitive, that exchange rates are not manipulated, that there are no economies of scale, that there is no cross-border investment or cross-border transfers of technology, and that there are no government subsidies or export requirements. If this were a true picture of our trade in tyres with China, then imposing tariffs would truly be harmfully protectionist and not be justified.

But this is not even close to the reality of our trade with "China, which far from embracing orthodox free trade has openly adopted a neo-mercantilist, export-led economic growth strategy. China keeps its renminbi undervalued against the dollar in order indirectly to subsidise its exports. Foreign direct investment in China is often induced by the use of special, targeted tax and financial incentives. Foreign companies investing in China are often required to export the bulk of their production as a condition of being allowed to enter the Chinese market. This is the case with Cooper Tires, which agreed to export 100 per cent of its production in return for being allowed to invest in a Chinese tyre factory. The tyre industry is characterised by enormous economies of scale and imperfectly competitive markets in which a few oligopolistic producers divide the market among themselves. It is Chinese industrial policies and not market forces that are currently determining the trade flows and the location of production and jobs to the detriment of the US tyre industry."

"This kind of trade is not win-win. Rather it is a classic zero-sum game. It is well-known to game theorists that in such situations a tit-for-tat response is the optimal strategy. Unilateral acquiescence to the aggressive initiatives of another player (the orthodox unilateral free-trade response) is a sure way to lose.

"This kind of situation was anticipated when China negotiated its entry into the World Trade Organisation along with most-favoured-nation treatment from the US. These deals specifically called for tariffs on China’s exports if they surged in ways that disrupted US industries. Between 2004 and 2008, US imports of Chinese tyres rose 215 per cent while US production fell by nearly 27 per cent and 5,000 US tyre industry jobs were lost. The ITC says China is not engaging in standard free trade and that its actions meet the established criteria and justify imposition of tariffs under the agreed international rules."
-------------------------------------
The Financial Times may be right or wrong about this tariff, but it is a different (British?) look at how selective tariffs can be pro-trade.

(FreakingDJ, you can ignore this since I posted it to you yesterday.) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
17. Good. We need more protectionism. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC