US steel tariffs 'break WTO rules'
- Thread starter Czar
- Start date
hmm Bush does something stupid to get more votes for the next election... I just love our form of democracy sometimes.
BTW IMO any backlash will do more harm than the good we are doing for America's steel industry.
BTW IMO any backlash will do more harm than the good we are doing for America's steel industry.
I hope they work out an agreement. The last thing we need is a trade war between the US and the EU.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Recently a similar ruling was made on Softwood Lumber. Canada is well aware of the headaches of "dealing" with the US.
The US imposes or threatens to impose Tarrifs every 5ish years(after previous agreements have expired), stating "Unfair" and "Subsidized" as the reason, Canada appeals to an International Trade body, the Body finds the US charges as without merit, Tarrifs are dropped, time-limited agreement signed, agreement expires, wash and repeat. It's a fargin PITA!
An interesting compromise was proposed by the US this latest round of shenanigans: "Let us buy your logs" and the Tarrifs would be dropped.
Another underhanded thing the US was doing, was this: Many Lumber Mills are owned buy American corps in Canada. So to offset the cost of the Tarrif to American Corps, they were refunded their Tarrif cost. This in effect Punishes Canadian owned mills, while protecting American owned mills, in Canada! I'd suspect that under different circumstances, this would be grounds for war.
Pisses me off!
The US imposes or threatens to impose Tarrifs every 5ish years(after previous agreements have expired), stating "Unfair" and "Subsidized" as the reason, Canada appeals to an International Trade body, the Body finds the US charges as without merit, Tarrifs are dropped, time-limited agreement signed, agreement expires, wash and repeat. It's a fargin PITA!
An interesting compromise was proposed by the US this latest round of shenanigans: "Let us buy your logs" and the Tarrifs would be dropped.
Another underhanded thing the US was doing, was this: Many Lumber Mills are owned buy American corps in Canada. So to offset the cost of the Tarrif to American Corps, they were refunded their Tarrif cost. This in effect Punishes Canadian owned mills, while protecting American owned mills, in Canada! I'd suspect that under different circumstances, this would be grounds for war.
Pisses me off!
I hope an agreement can be made before the 3 year tarriff expires. It is already 1/2 way done I think.
Maybe we can get the WTO to rule against airbus and its goverment funding one day. I am not holding my breath on that one.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Recently a similar ruling was made on Softwood Lumber. Canada is well aware of the headaches of "dealing" with the US.
The US imposes or threatens to impose Tarrifs every 5ish years(after previous agreements have expired), stating "Unfair" and "Subsidized" as the reason, Canada appeals to an International Trade body, the Body finds the US charges as without merit, Tarrifs are dropped, time-limited agreement signed, agreement expires, wash and repeat. It's a fargin PITA!
An interesting compromise was proposed by the US this latest round of shenanigans: "Let us buy your logs" and the Tarrifs would be dropped.
Another underhanded thing the US was doing, was this: Many Lumber Mills are owned buy American corps in Canada. So to offset the cost of the Tarrif to American Corps, they were refunded their Tarrif cost. This in effect Punishes Canadian owned mills, while protecting American owned mills, in Canada! I'd suspect that under different circumstances, this would be grounds for war.
Pisses me off!
Oh yes the Canadians and their incessant whining about the US imposing tariffs against a Canadian goverment subsidized industry. Waa, waa, waa. The WTO ruling clearly stated that the Canuck goverment was subsidizing the industry and that the tariff was illegal because it was calculated wrong. As far as a NAFTA ruling is concerned please link it. I can't find it.
That in and of it's self is not against the WTO rules. Now if France were to impose trade tariffs on every American commercial plane being sold in France or add other barries to negatively hamper the sales of U.S. planes then that would be against the rules.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: sandorski
Recently a similar ruling was made on Softwood Lumber. Canada is well aware of the headaches of "dealing" with the US.
The US imposes or threatens to impose Tarrifs every 5ish years(after previous agreements have expired), stating "Unfair" and "Subsidized" as the reason, Canada appeals to an International Trade body, the Body finds the US charges as without merit, Tarrifs are dropped, time-limited agreement signed, agreement expires, wash and repeat. It's a fargin PITA!
An interesting compromise was proposed by the US this latest round of shenanigans: "Let us buy your logs" and the Tarrifs would be dropped.
Another underhanded thing the US was doing, was this: Many Lumber Mills are owned buy American corps in Canada. So to offset the cost of the Tarrif to American Corps, they were refunded their Tarrif cost. This in effect Punishes Canadian owned mills, while protecting American owned mills, in Canada! I'd suspect that under different circumstances, this would be grounds for war.
Pisses me off!
Oh yes the Canadians and their incessant whining about the US imposing tariffs against a Canadian goverment subsidized industry. Waa, waa, waa. The WTO ruling clearly stated that the Canuck goverment was subsidizing the industry and that the tariff was illegal because it was calculated wrong. As far as a NAFTA ruling is concerned please link it. I can't find it.
Link to WTO ruling?
Here's a blurb about it: Subsidized, yes, however US Tariffs wrong
If the US would do things correctly(take complaints to a tribunal), they would possibly have a leg to stand on regarding Tariffs. Unfortunetly, they know that Canada can be dicked around, forcing Canada to seek Justice in the matter. I think the US would find Canada more willing to change things if the US wasn't such d1cks about this dispute, Canada abides by International Rulings.
The NAFTA ruling has been postponed until the 17th, no reason given.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: sandorski
Recently a similar ruling was made on Softwood Lumber. Canada is well aware of the headaches of "dealing" with the US.
The US imposes or threatens to impose Tarrifs every 5ish years(after previous agreements have expired), stating "Unfair" and "Subsidized" as the reason, Canada appeals to an International Trade body, the Body finds the US charges as without merit, Tarrifs are dropped, time-limited agreement signed, agreement expires, wash and repeat. It's a fargin PITA!
An interesting compromise was proposed by the US this latest round of shenanigans: "Let us buy your logs" and the Tarrifs would be dropped.
Another underhanded thing the US was doing, was this: Many Lumber Mills are owned buy American corps in Canada. So to offset the cost of the Tarrif to American Corps, they were refunded their Tarrif cost. This in effect Punishes Canadian owned mills, while protecting American owned mills, in Canada! I'd suspect that under different circumstances, this would be grounds for war.
Pisses me off!
Oh yes the Canadians and their incessant whining about the US imposing tariffs against a Canadian goverment subsidized industry. Waa, waa, waa. The WTO ruling clearly stated that the Canuck goverment was subsidizing the industry and that the tariff was illegal because it was calculated wrong. As far as a NAFTA ruling is concerned please link it. I can't find it.
Link to WTO ruling?
Here's a blurb about it: Subsidized, yes, however US Tariffs wrong
If the US would do things correctly(take complaints to a tribunal), they would possibly have a leg to stand on regarding Tariffs. Unfortunetly, they know that Canada can be dicked around, forcing Canada to seek Justice in the matter. I think the US would find Canada more willing to change things if the US wasn't such d1cks about this dispute, Canada abides by International Rulings.
The NAFTA ruling has been postponed until the 17th, no reason given.
There have been plenty of negotiations trying to resolve this issue. The Canadian goverments position has been that what they were doing wasn't a subsidy, a position they have gotten promptly stuck up their ass. And rightly so. As long as the canadians think this and act in this manner, we have the right to protect our interests. As far as our beings dicks, tell me something. Did we level the tariff before or after you started subsidizing your lumber industry?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: sandorski
Recently a similar ruling was made on Softwood Lumber. Canada is well aware of the headaches of "dealing" with the US.
The US imposes or threatens to impose Tarrifs every 5ish years(after previous agreements have expired), stating "Unfair" and "Subsidized" as the reason, Canada appeals to an International Trade body, the Body finds the US charges as without merit, Tarrifs are dropped, time-limited agreement signed, agreement expires, wash and repeat. It's a fargin PITA!
An interesting compromise was proposed by the US this latest round of shenanigans: "Let us buy your logs" and the Tarrifs would be dropped.
Another underhanded thing the US was doing, was this: Many Lumber Mills are owned buy American corps in Canada. So to offset the cost of the Tarrif to American Corps, they were refunded their Tarrif cost. This in effect Punishes Canadian owned mills, while protecting American owned mills, in Canada! I'd suspect that under different circumstances, this would be grounds for war.
Pisses me off!
Oh yes the Canadians and their incessant whining about the US imposing tariffs against a Canadian goverment subsidized industry. Waa, waa, waa. The WTO ruling clearly stated that the Canuck goverment was subsidizing the industry and that the tariff was illegal because it was calculated wrong. As far as a NAFTA ruling is concerned please link it. I can't find it.
Link to WTO ruling?
Here's a blurb about it: Subsidized, yes, however US Tariffs wrong
If the US would do things correctly(take complaints to a tribunal), they would possibly have a leg to stand on regarding Tariffs. Unfortunetly, they know that Canada can be dicked around, forcing Canada to seek Justice in the matter. I think the US would find Canada more willing to change things if the US wasn't such d1cks about this dispute, Canada abides by International Rulings.
The NAFTA ruling has been postponed until the 17th, no reason given.
There have been plenty of negotiations trying to resolve this issue. The Canadian goverments position has been that what they were doing wasn't a subsidy, a position they have gotten promptly stuck up their ass. And rightly so. As long as the canadians think this and act in this manner, we have the right to protect our interests. As far as our beings dicks, tell me something. Did we level the tariff before or after you started subsidizing your lumber industry?
All previous rulings have been that Canada has not been subsidizing, perhaps a result of the wrong angle used by the US or changing trade rules, I dunno, but Canada has always won such controversies. The US has a history of making a charge, imposing the penalty, then being ruled against. It seems that the US has the responsibility to make the charge, take it to the appropriate authorities, then based on the ruling act impose tariffs, get Canada to change it's system, or some other action.
Canada will abide.
They can't because Airbus violates no WTO rules. The only argument that the US has advanced is that the EU loans to Airbus for development of the A380 (which would break Boeings monopoly on large aircraft) may exceed the 33percent cap set by WTO rules depending on how you do the accounting. Besides, without Airbus Boeing would have an absolute monopoly on passenger aircraft manufacturing which wouldn't be good for anyone.
Well that would be true, but remember the goverment funded airbus ran mcdonald douglas out of business. At the time airbus was making planes, even thought i had no buyers. Then it offered sweetheart deal to airlines and sold these planes at a loss. It is amazing what you can do with goverment funding.
Charisson,
Your problem is that you see everything as anti-USA.
The WTO made a fair decision based on facts that the steel policy of the Bush administration is against the rules. If the WTO decides that the funding of airbus is not against the rules then you just have to live with that
simple ....
The Steel tariffs were a joke of course.
Bush passed them to gain support from swing voters in some key states like Ohio, PA, and Illinois.
He then quietly began implementing so many exemptions that they are pretty much worthless now......but he has kept most of his new found support by those swing voters that aren't aware of the new loopholes.
Bush passed them to gain support from swing voters in some key states like Ohio, PA, and Illinois.
He then quietly began implementing so many exemptions that they are pretty much worthless now......but he has kept most of his new found support by those swing voters that aren't aware of the new loopholes.
We obey and generally write the laws that help us not hurt us. Law is just codified advantage. You pay attention to it only if there is force. When you are the force you do what you want.
Airbus did not run McDonald Douglass out of business. If anything, a loss of defense contracts and an absolute failure by McDonald douglass to innovate and improve technology ran them out of the passenger aircraft business. Both Boeing and MD spent 30 years resting comfortably on thier laurels failing to innvoate in thier civil aviation business. Airbus aircraft generally have higher levels of automation, better fuel economy (with both US and Rolls Royce Engines), extended overhaul intervals, etc. Airbus also runs at a far lower profit margin that Boeing would ever dream of accepting, something under 10% last time I checked. No one has ever proven that Airbus has been dumping aircraft on any of the contracts they won.
Airbus did recieve substantial government subsidies in the form of below market rate loans since its inception in 1970 up until the early 90's. It would be virtually impossible for any countries other than the United States to break into the commercial aviation market without a collaborative government aided effort. Notice even Japan has not even attempted it? You do realize that Boeing and McD were heavily subsidized by defense contracts right? Anyway, Airbus is now over 80% owned by EADS which is publicly traded and has many partnerships with American firms. 30% of Boeing civil aricraft parts are European with a similar amount applying to Airbus aircraft.
Meanwhile, Boeing has had the same basic 747 for 30 years, and they now make over $20 million + on each of those aircraft I think a little more on the passenger variety. They are also raping the US government with things like that stupid tanker lease deal. Oh yeah, the twenty + year exculsive contracts they strong armed the airlines into accepting?? Now they bitch and moan because the A380 is well on its way through initial design concepts + has funding for R+D while they have only succeeded in coming up with some weak drawings. Boo Freaking hooo. This is the same thing that happened in the US auto industry and they are still catching up,
the only thing that was a joke is that the tariffs were not substantially higher. all the free trade may be well and good but tell me it is ok when both your parents work in the steel mills.
How about talking about American ttarrifs with my friends who have lost their homes because our forest industry was gutted by what has been ruled and unfair tarriff. There are people on both sides of the equation, my friend.
I'm sorry that your parent's lost thier jobs, but we do have a capitalist system. The US steel industry failed to innovate and adapt and as such got killed by the Japanese steel industry. That's all thier is to it. Why should the American consumer pay for more expensive/lower quality products to support that?
actually neither of my parents lost their jobs. i am from indiana, the largest steel-producing state in the nation. unfortunately, a democrat hasn't taken indiana since LBJ in 1964 and i dont see it happen again anytime soon. in addition, I am 23 years old and in graduate school (that I am paying for myself) so it does not effect me as much as someone younger. i feel greatly for those who did lose their homes and jobs in other industries, and it is a tragedy that things came to this. my point about the tariffs dealt more with the dumping. russian and slovak (us steel has heavily invested in plants there) steel companies specifically produce way too much steel and merely dump it on the water in order to drive down the price of steel everywhere. the tariff also had to deal with that as well.
And it is largely the EU goverments funding the a380. IF the a380 fails airbus does not. If boeing fails on a design they do die(the 747 came very close to doing that).
It is funny that in one sentence you say no one has ever proven airbus was dumping product on the market, but in the next you do admit they are goverment subsidised. So which is it?
1. It is not largely the EU governments funding the A380. As agreed upon under WTO/GATT rules 33% of the funding for A380 comes from European Governments in the form of low cost loans. The rest has been raised by EADS on the open market (Primarliy from European and American banks with a smattering of Japanese loans). If Boeing/The US Government/Boeings unions feel that is being violated they are more than welcome to go to the WTO and get a ruling. Hasn't really happened yet, because they know thier case is week.
If Boeing fails on a design they fail to exist....that is a pretty good excuse. When is the last time Boeing came out with a totally new aircraft? Hmmmm...that would be 1995 I believe. How many Airbus aircraft have come out since then....quite a few more than 1. So I guess the fear of failure and the big bad Airbus is holding us poor Americans down. If you want to come out ahead in a competitive market (emphasize competitive) you need to take risks. If you are unwilling to do so, step aside and let the youngsters have at it. Boeing
2. Thier is a big difference between dumping and subsidies. Under WTO rules dumping roughly equates to selling a product in a foriegn market at below cost or below local market costs. That is not = to subsidies. Don't put words in my mouth or try and equate two distinct concepts.
Airbus did recieve substantial subsidies during the start up phase from 1970 to 1990. That was changed in 1992 with the new agreements agreed upon with the US. Notice it was only after that agreement where the direct subsidies were replaced with a max of 33% development loans that Airbus started taking huge amounts of market share away from Boeing?? Boeing dropped the ball. Why has Airbus been the only one using a ful CAD design process since 1990 while Boeing is only now catching up? Why has Airbus had common cockpits since 1990 or so while Boeing still does not. DO you have any idea how appealing common cockpits are to airlines and cargo carriers? Why has Airbus been using fully computerized instrumented diagnostics since at least the mid 90's in all its new offerings, while Boeing still relys on trace it down and find it yourself service checklists and diagrams (of a non cad designed aircraft mind you).
Also Airbus has heavily invested in economic advantage packages with purchasing countries. Good examples are domestic manufacturing contracts with Hindustan aircraft, as well as cross licensing deals with Swiss airlines. They will bring jobs and work to the country in question as part of selling thier aircaft and in the process may actually reduce the cost of the final product due to reduced labor and infrastructure costs even when startup costs are taken into account.. Boeing has never felt the need to do this before in commercial aviation and dropped the ball big time on these incentives which have seriously helped Airbuses penetration in 3rd world and other poorer nations.
As to subsidies, Airbus had them and now they have low cost loans which may amount to a subsidy.
However, Boeing has massive defense contracts which subsidize a lot of thier R+D, not to mention huge tax breaks and other incentives from local governments which amount to subsidies.
I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.
And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.
I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.
Originally posted by: charrison
I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.And lower US taxes are not a subsidy, they are just lower taxes.
And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.
I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.
1. A package of tax breaks and incentives to a particular company or industry is not technically a subsidy, but the effect is the same. If I am going to reduce the operating costs of a particular industry through legislation, that has the same effect as if I were giving them money directly. BTW: You seem to be conveniently missing out on the fact that the US does heavily subsizdes basic research and critical Industries. A few examples: The NSF grants which total billions of dollars a year to private companies and research institutions. The Export Import Bank, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Maritime Administration(only reason economically uncompetative US shipyards exist besides defense contracts) Go down to Pascagoula Mississippi sometime and tell me that the US military isn't subsidizing the US shipbuilding industry, The Small Business Administration, DARPA, shall I go on???
2. You don't know much about aviation do you. No, a 777 is not based directly on a military design. Don't be obtuse.
Engines, avionics, materials, production and prototyping methodologies are all generally paid for initially by military contracts and then transferred over to the civillian sector in the US. This is how Boeing saves a lot of R+D money on the civillian side. The DOD and the US taxpayer pay just about 100% of Boeings advanced R+D work which eventually trickles down into the commercial side. However, inexplicably Boeing failed to transfer over many many military technologies in the 1990s until Airbus started to kick thier ass with better aircraft at competiive prices without onerous terms such as 20 year exclusive contracts.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter