BBC: EU imposes tariffs on US goods

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
The US has been told off for the steel taxes, and if Bush does not lift it the WTO will allow the EU to tax a shitload of US products.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
The US has been told off for the steel taxes, and if Bush does not lift it the WTO will allow the EU to tax a shitload of US products.
EU, China, Japan, Brazil, Norway, South Korea and New Zealand, not sure if the US has any choice in this matter

 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Hopefully, the US will adhere to the WTO's demand and allow the US heavy manufacturing industries to recover without unnecessary fetters. If only we did this earlier, our GDP growth could have been much higher even before this last quarter.
 

flyfish

Senior member
Oct 23, 2000
856
0
0
The WTO will soon be the most powerfully body in the world. It will reduce the United States' sovereignty to rubble. They can force the US to change or ignore its own laws concerning the Environment. There are many, many other bad things about the WTO that I don't have the time or space to talk about. Generally though, you will notice that most WTO rulings bring down one nation to the level of the lower nation. The EU being the exception. This is the way things are going to be and I know there is nothing I can do to stop this. So we can make the best of it I guess.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: rjain
Hopefully, the US will adhere to the WTO's demand and allow the US heavy manufacturing industries to recover without unnecessary fetters. If only we did this earlier, our GDP growth could have been much higher even before this last quarter.

Lets see.. eliminate the tariff allowing the foreign nations to undercut our industry pricing structure resulting in the loss of their revenue and thereby the loss of more jobs and this is good? Guess the dummies who installed the tariff ought to be run out of town. If the US has no manufacturing at all and just import everything we will have sales people and farmers. And, we'll all live high on the hog. Heck, the basis of an economy is sales and service and the dummy folks around the world who are building factories hand over foot in order to take our manufacturing are just stupid. They are wasting their time.. Sales and Service is where it's at.. and farming.

Tariff... what a foolish protection device... just fire the expensive people and import cheap labor from China or where ever, why have them ship the stuff half way around the world. Yeah... why put the shipping industry out of business.. I forgot..
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: rjain
Lunar: good to know you hate our steel-using industries.
I'm just a simple monkey looking for my banana. Just like all my other monkey brethern hither and yon. You don't see the reason to help our steel producers reorganize and don't see the (up to) 30% tariff as helping them. Fine by me. With out it our producers will not be able to reorg and will be shut out by the world. It was for 3 years and was needed for the political and commercial interest of this industry.
You are convinced that for US Companies to compete they need being competitive with the world. True! To do this we need paying minimum wage and buying the goesintas from abroad too. We'll have nothing but minimum wage assembly workers. Bio tech folks are next. Soon every one will be competitive with everyone else.. and the cost structure will be the same. Has to be don't you think?

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: GrGr
I was thinking more along the lines that Bush's tax cuts were poorly designed to stimulate the US economy. Bush had his proirities wrong and the Europeans know it.
This is about corperate taxes that where in place before Bush came into office, but thanks for playing.
This is also about the steel tariffs that Bush imposed. Better luck next time.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: rjain
Lunar: good to know you hate our steel-using industries.
I'm just a simple monkey looking for my banana. Just like all my other monkey brethern hither and yon. You don't see the reason to help our steel producers reorganize and don't see the (up to) 30% tariff as helping them. Fine by me. With out it our producers will not be able to reorg and will be shut out by the world. It was for 3 years and was needed for the political and commercial interest of this industry.
You are convinced that for US Companies to compete they need being competitive with the world. True! To do this we need paying minimum wage and buying the goesintas from abroad too. We'll have nothing but minimum wage assembly workers. Bio tech folks are next. Soon every one will be competitive with everyone else.. and the cost structure will be the same. Has to be don't you think?
Yep, time to do away with minimum wage and start opening Sweat Shops right here in America so there won't be an excuse to send the jobs overseas.


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: rjain
Lunar: good to know you hate our steel-using industries.
I'm just a simple monkey looking for my banana. Just like all my other monkey brethern hither and yon. You don't see the reason to help our steel producers reorganize and don't see the (up to) 30% tariff as helping them. Fine by me. With out it our producers will not be able to reorg and will be shut out by the world. It was for 3 years and was needed for the political and commercial interest of this industry.
You are convinced that for US Companies to compete they need being competitive with the world. True! To do this we need paying minimum wage and buying the goesintas from abroad too. We'll have nothing but minimum wage assembly workers. Bio tech folks are next. Soon every one will be competitive with everyone else.. and the cost structure will be the same. Has to be don't you think?
Yep, time to do away with minimum wage and start opening Sweat Shops right here in America so there won't be an excuse to send the jobs overseas.
But, some of the posters on this forum somehow think they are immune. Not hardly! Even the highly paid become worthless and burdensome in a fully managed (remember Price Waterhouse in the '70s everyone looked the same and IBM.. same suit same everything) well what need is there for Finance types when everything is the same. Just a computer and a monkey to enter the data. Oh.. and the sweat shop gang.. need them.. but, maybe the illegals will do it and the rest of us can just party with our UI checks and Welfare.. but, who the heck is funding that? Loans from China and India.. I guess.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Do you really think data entry is a $100,000 job? Do you really think that's all finance is? How does a bunch of data do anything? Maybe the $100,000 job is in making that data do something, no? If someone can do that job, then why wouldn't he get paid as much as he deserves for it? And what happened to that lucrative farming profession. Now plowhands are hardly paid anything!! What is the world coming to??

If all you can do is a sweat shop job, why should someone pay you professional wages? If you want a good job, get some useful skills. Don't whine to the world that they owe you money because you're you.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Cheerleaders:

Make no mistake, a trade war is seriously bad mojo for EVERYONE.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Cheerleaders:

Make no mistake, a trade war is seriously bad mojo for EVERYONE.
If they understood this, they wouldn't support measures that are so destructive to our economy in the first place. In fact, these measures are destructive to our economy even in the absence of a trade war.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: rjain
Do you really think data entry is a $100,000 job? Do you really think that's all finance is? How does a bunch of data do anything? Maybe the $100,000 job is in making that data do something, no? If someone can do that job, then why wouldn't he get paid as much as he deserves for it? And what happened to that lucrative farming profession. Now plowhands are hardly paid anything!! What is the world coming to??

If all you can do is a sweat shop job, why should someone pay you professional wages? If you want a good job, get some useful skills. Don't whine to the world that they owe you money because you're you.
Well now.. did I say that? I said a monkey.. don't even have to pay it minimum wage. In context of what I said you should have at least gleemed the thrust of my statement.
Premise... we will go to a minimum wage rate for most jobs... to compete with the cheap labor. Given this condition the second premise is that in an enviornment such as this the financial tools needed will be housed in far fewer places since the opportunity to use them vanishes. Conglomerations take over. Vertical and horizontal acquisitions force out the 'white collar'. This then results in my syllogism: There will be lots of sweat shop jobs available and populated by the ex white collar worker and his spouse and kids so to make the house payment..

 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
If everyone is so dumb and so lazy that they don't want to create new technologies, but just want to do things that everyone else knows how to do, maybe that's what's best for our society. You seem to be obsessed with the normal trimming of overspeculation that occurs. Why don't you study the history of every single technology ever created? All the way from agriculture to, now, global information networks. Where are all the sweatshop farming jobs? Do you really think that a mechanical engineer at John Deere is a sweatshop worker?
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Just to elaborate: Most jobs that are in mature industries ARE sweatshop jobs. That is what happens when an industry matures and learns how to mechanize most of the tasks involved. In fact, these days, we don't even need many sweatshop workers. We just mechanize the whole process and have a single person watch over the machines. This allows others to contribute their labor where it's more needed. Do you really think that we'd be better off requiring that about 80% of the people work 8 hours a day in the fields just to provide the food needed to feed everyone? Was forever being on the edge of famine a good thing? Now that only a small portion of the population is needed to ensure that we can afford basic food, we can concentrate on other things that we want.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: rjain
If everyone is so dumb and so lazy that they don't want to create new technologies, but just want to do things that everyone else knows how to do, maybe that's what's best for our society. You seem to be obsessed with the normal trimming of overspeculation that occurs. Why don't you study the history of every single technology ever created? All the way from agriculture to, now, global information networks. Where are all the sweatshop farming jobs? Do you really think that a mechanical engineer at John Deere is a sweatshop worker?
Gee you still don't see that I'm talking about the transition that will occur in order to compete. Stay in the same book if not the same chapter and I'd suggest the same page. It don't matter what folks make per hour in the US if as YOU say and I agree, that the EEO and many other countries can and do undercut the prices (landed). So if Deere (anyone) can't match the price then they have to reduce their cost structure. They may go out of business move offshore for parts and assemble or just buy an Indian facility and make the tractor there. In any event, the mechanical engineer will either not be needed or will have to reduce his pay so the company can compete.. If you say no to this then well.. fine, say no. There is more than one tractor maker on the planet and us Americans want the cheapest, right?

 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
So mechanical engineers aren't needed in order to engineer mechanical devices. Ok, so what do you call those people? With the savings on labor, they can afford to pay the mechanical engineer more. In fact, if the laborers are less skilled, the engineers will be more needed in order to come up with a more reliable and tolerant manufacturing process. If Americans are at all worth our salt, why would we not be able to compete in a fair global market?

If we are overpaid, lazy, and underqualified, then we'll lose whether or not we gouge our manufacturing industries out of business. But I don't see how price gouging our manufacturing industries will make them any more competitive. You want a manufacturing recovery, but then you want to force our manufacturing companies to take their factories out of the country or go out of business all together. I don't get it.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: rjain
So mechanical engineers aren't needed in order to engineer mechanical devices. Ok, so what do you call those people? With the savings on labor, they can afford to pay the mechanical engineer more. In fact, if the laborers are less skilled, the engineers will be more needed in order to come up with a more reliable and tolerant manufacturing process. If Americans are at all worth our salt, why would we not be able to compete in a fair global market?

If we are overpaid, lazy, and underqualified, then we'll lose whether or not we gouge our manufacturing industries out of business. But I don't see how price gouging our manufacturing industries will make them any more competitive. You want a manufacturing recovery, but then you want to force our manufacturing companies to take their factories out of the country or go out of business all together. I don't get it.

If the company closes down they won't be needed. Gee Rjain, I think one can properly infer from this quote of my statement "They may go out of business move offshore for parts and assemble or just buy an Indian facility and make the tractor there. In any event, the mechanical engineer will either not be needed or will have to reduce his pay so the company can compete.."

Regarding the other comments on the other posts regarding my Ideal Utopia Scenario... "Full Employment at Livable Wages" one can easily see if one thinks about it a bit why and how the accumulate trade deficits and the accumulated budget deficits would be affected. But, for what its worth I'll elaborate the reality.
Full Employment brings budget surplus via increased tax revenue from both the individual and the corporate side without increased rates. It is volume related. The GNP would necessarily be increased and a debt that stays the same percentage of a increased GNP would mean budget deficit and not surplus.. even with the reduced tax burden on the citizen (remember I said, reduce the % of debt).. this is obvious.
The trade deficit to credit issue presupposes that with full employment a few dynamics are at play. We'd still import and export but with the full employment we'd expect to see either an increased export to balance imports or a decreased import offset by the production and consumption of US goods. Additionally, the attempt of the EEO to move oil and other commodities to the euro from the US $ would be thwarted by the strength of the US Economy (remember the EEO is expanding and will be the largest market soon and that brings power).
Read the link regaring the Euro Denominated Commodity issue in the other thread.
The above are the dynamics that occurs but, of course full employment (the term) is argued as 4% unemployed not because there are no jobs available but because the economic models suggest folks in transit, babies, illness, etc result in that figure.
In any event, the simple full employment statement results (with out question) in lots of favorable other occurances.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay

If the company closes down they won't be needed. Gee Rjain, I think one can properly infer from this quote of my statement "They may go out of business move offshore for parts and assemble or just buy an Indian facility and make the tractor there. In any event, the mechanical engineer will either not be needed or will have to reduce his pay so the company can compete.."
So even though we can outsource work to other countries, they can't outsource to us? The only thing that needs to leave the US is the factory, so that they can get steel at competitive prices in order to create products at competitive prices. All these tarriffs are doing is reducing the attractiveness of the US manufacturing industry.
Full Employment brings budget surplus via increased tax revenue from both the individual and the corporate side without increased rates. It is volume related. The GNP would necessarily be increased and a debt that stays the same percentage of a increased GNP would mean budget deficit and not surplus.. even with the reduced tax burden on the citizen (remember I said, reduce the % of debt).. this is obvious.
The GNP wouldn't necessarily be increased, as those who are adept at making revenue will have to give up that revenue in order to employ people who are earning more money than they bring in due to minimum wages. So no, it's not obvious, Mr A. Weblog. :)
The trade deficit to credit issue presupposes that with full employment a few dynamics are at play. We'd still import and export but with the full employment we'd expect to see either an increased export to balance imports or a decreased import offset by the production and consumption of US goods. Additionally, the attempt of the EEO to move oil and other commodities to the euro from the US $ would be thwarted by the strength of the US Economy (remember the EEO is expanding and will be the largest market soon and that brings power).
Read the link regaring the Euro Denominated Commodity issue in the other thread.
And yet you said that the reason trade is done in dollars is because of the US trade deficit. According to you, a stronger US economy would decrease our trade deficit, which would reduce the attractiveness of holding, and therefore the strength of, the dollar.
The above are the dynamics that occurs but, of course full employment (the term) is argued as 4% unemployed not because there are no jobs available but because the economic models suggest folks in transit, babies, illness, etc result in that figure.
In any event, the simple full employment statement results (with out question) in lots of favorable other occurances.
Full employment is impossible because the moment it happens, employers get scared and cut back their business, reducing demand from their suppliers and possibly forcing them to lay off employees, as I said before.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY