Juggernaut of hypocrisy but with steel tariffs

[Djinn Raffo]

Its not just steel. Check Bushes soft wood lumber issue that is hurting British Columbia severely.

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azred:


Votes? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] For what? Bush doesn't need votes; he's in office for another 2 years.

---

He needs votes for The Republicans in the congressional elections.

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 17, 2002; Page A02

President Bush admonished Latin America yesterday against straying from the path of free markets, a sign of mounting worries in Washington that Argentina's wrenching economic crisis may lead Buenos Aires and neighboring countries to resort to protectionism and government intervention.

"Argentina -- and nations throughout the hemisphere -- need to strengthen our commitment to market-based reform, not weaken it," Bush declared. Although expressing sympathy for that nation's plight and reiterating that Washington will support international aid for Argentina's new government provided it embraces a "sound and sustainable economic plan," Bush said, "Shortcuts to reform only lead to more trouble."

---------

That last sentence may well come back to haunt him. George Bush is engaged in pure pork-barrel politics, paying off his debts to big business whilst at the same time looking for votes for fellow republicans in the upcoming congressional elections in steel states such as West Virginia and Ohio.

Of course the US is the biggest boy in the playground and if you want to bully the rest of the world you can. But even Bush's poodle is yapping around his ankles:

Blair condemns US steel tariffs

Staff and agencies
Wednesday March 6, 2002

Tony Blair today condemned the US decision to impose punitive tariffs on steel imports as "unacceptable and wrong" in a rare attack on the Bush administration.

Despite "standing shoulder to shoulder" with the US on most issues, Mr Blair did not mince his words during prime minister's question time as he called America's move totally unjustified.

Mr Blair called on the US steel industry to restructure rather than hide behind trade barriers, adding: "We have made representations at every level of government. We will continue to do so through the European Union."

Number 10 said President Bush's move clearly flouted World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and that Britain would introduce "safeguard measures" to protect British steel firms.

[norompanlasolas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 17, 2002; Page A02

President Bush admonished Latin America yesterday against straying from the path of free markets, a sign of mounting worries in Washington that Argentina's wrenching economic crisis may lead Buenos Aires and neighboring countries to resort to protectionism and government intervention.

"Argentina -- and nations throughout the hemisphere -- need to strengthen our commitment to market-based reform, not weaken it," Bush declared. Although expressing sympathy for that nation's plight and reiterating that Washington will support international aid for Argentina's new government provided it embraces a "sound and sustainable economic plan," Bush said, "Shortcuts to reform only lead to more trouble."

---

this only shows that (not only bush) but the system is hypocritical. all that talk about free trade is bull, as its only meant to work for the small countries. not only the us is doing this. the eu has gigantic subventions on their agriculture that hurts exporting by other countries (like argentina). of course, the us, china and a lot of other countries also have subventions on their agriculture.

now bush is paying in advance for the votes he is going to need for his reelection by (as usual in him) putting his feet in his mouth by doing the exact opposite of what hes been preaching on... the wonders of capitalism and free trade. and this will not only hurt foreign countries. the us people will have to pay for more expensive, less quality products because of the inefficient us steel industry, that has declared more than 20 companies in bankrupcy in the last 5 years because of their worker privileges and high manufacturing costs.

petty politics at its best. who said bush was an honourable man? what an idiot of a president.

edit: for spelling.

[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: norompanlasolas ]

[Moiraine]

Here is what my favourite French radio said this morning on the subject. I let you find an adequate translation, the one Altavista gave me is terrible ...


Il y a un siècle de cela, un siècle plus un an, c'était en 1901, un évènement industriel énorme eut lieu aux Etats-Unis. Selon les journaux de l'époque, il s'agissait de la plus grosse opération économique de tous les temps. Le financier J.P. MORGAN racheta au sidérurgiste Andrew CARNEGIE pour 250 millions de dollars des acieries de la Carnegie Steel Company. Andrew CARNEGIE devint l'homme le plus riche du monde et J.P. MORGAN le plus puissant de la planète. L'acier était et devait rester encore longtemps le symbole et l'aliment principal de la nouvelle puissance américaine. L'acier fut l'instrument de la construction d'un pays dont on discernait qu'il serait différent des autres, de ses gratte-ciel qui faisaient rêver le monde entier, de ses voies ferrées qui reliaient les océans de l'Atlantique au Pacifique, de ses ouvrages d'art gigantesques et bientôt d'une machine de guerre appelée à régner sur le monde.

Aujourd'hui, les Etats-Unis ne pointent plus dans la production mondiale, qu'en quatrième position, bien loin derrière l'Union Européenne, mais aussi la Chine et le Japon. Les Carnegie d'aujourd'hui se nomment ARCELOR en Europe, Nippon Steen ou Kawasaki au Japon, Bosco en Corée du Sud, Shanghaï Baosteel en Chine. La première entreprise américaine US Steel qui fut la première du monde n'arrive qu'en 14ème position. La puissance américaine n'a fait que grandir tandis que son industrie de l'acier déclinait dans un marché mondial saturé. C'est que souvent des alliages nouveaux, des matériaux synthétiques ont remplacé cet acier qui n'a plus tout à fait le caractère stratégique unique qu'il possédait au vingtième siècle.

L'Amérique s'est envolée en laissant à l'abandon ce fardeau trop lourd. Brutalement, elle se réveille en découvrant un peu tard qu'une grande nation et a plus forte raison l'Unique Super Puissance mondiale ne peut pas dépendre totalement des importations étrangères pour la fabrication de ses armements et de l'armature de ses gratte ciel. Les Etats-Unis, qui depuis plus de vingt ans, a prêché toujours, forcé parfois l'ouverture des marchés étrangers au nom du libre-échange, dresse aujourd'hui des barrières douanières dignes de celles qu'érigeait autrefois l'Union Soviétique, la Chine communiste ou des pays du Tiers Monde qui ont l'excuse d'être en phase de décollage économique. Le président George W. BUSH ne parait pas avoir compris qu'être à la tête d'un Empire mondial implique quelques responsabilités vis à vis des populations qu'on domine. On ne peut pas exiger l'appui de toutes les nations pour lutter contre le terrorisme, faire la morale dans ce domaine et dans bien d'autres à la planète entière et renier d'un seul coup les leçons quie l'on a prêchées pendant tant d'années.

L'unique superpuissance ne peut pas faire subir aux autres pays producteurs d'acier les conséquenes de son absence de prévoyance dans un secteur essentiel et transférer vers d'autres les problèmes qu'elle s'est créés. Ou bien alors, elle devra s'attendre à ce que son règne soit de plus en plus vivement contesté, y compris par ses amis et ses alliés.


[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolla ZE:
You are either for free trade or against it. Bush is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

---

Oh that is just ludicrous. You want a one size fits all when you are comparing apples and oranges. Free trade works for NAFTA because all the nations involved are working to agree with it. NAFTA is NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE not global free trade...Now if other nations want free trade, then work out a deal, otherwise we should be levieng tarrifs on your goods just as you do to ours. It is totaly bullshite to say your either for it or against it. You have to look at the situation and not make uninformed generalizations.

Noro if you want free trade tell your government to work out a deal with the USA, quit taxing the hell out of US goods and maybe we will respond in kind? We are totaly free trade..when it is a fair and reciprocal deal, not when it is a one way charity fest for foreign governments.

As for British Columbia lumber, I don't believe that there are exceptions for lumber, It was never mentioned in the NAFTA articles I have read. As far as I know there is free trade accross the boarders with mexico and canada. BUT as for FREE TRADE that was not even one of BUSH's planks for election. The NAFTA stuff was during the last (Clinton) administration.. Now you are blaming one president for the policies of another...gee while we are at it why not blame Helmut Kole for Nazi Germany in 1939?

quote:

---

Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

(as usual in him) putting his feet in his mouth by doing the exact opposite of what hes been preaching on... the wonders of capitalism and free trade. ]

---

FiRST BUSH did not campaign on FREE TRADE, Second, CAPITALISM is not the same as FREE TRADE, Third, CAPITALISM does not IMPLY free trade.
fourth, CAPITALISM does not have anything to do with free trade. The idea of free trade and tarrifs is how governments protect their own native industries. Don't bitch at the USA for having tarrifs, untill your own country gets rid of all its tarrifs. the USA (except for the NAFTA thing) hasn't really been saying much of anything about "free" trade vs tarrifs in the last year.


IF you people want to bitch about something, at least come up with something current or new, tarrifs on goods is neither, and Bush pushing for adjusting the tarrifs is no big deal, it happens all the time. Presidents have to deal with the national economy all the time.

[Davros]

You asked Dramnek where he was from, but there's no mistaking where you're coming from Magik . I guess I can look forward to a caustic reply very shortly, because to date almost no one has been allowed to challenge the Bush policy without getting an earful from you. You will be pleased to note that I come from a land with no protectionism for it's steel, sugar, beef etc - one that is quite use to getting regularly kicked by the subsidy wars.

************************************************** ***************
AUSTRALIA is considering a protest to the World Trade Organisation against a US decision to slap a 30 per cent tariff on imported steel to protect its moribund domestic industry.

The move risks a trade war with key US allies in the fight against terrorism, threw half of BHP's US steel exports into turmoil and potentially threatens hundreds of Australian jobs.

The Howard Government announced an immediate industry summit and raised the prospect of a WTO appeal.

The European Union promised action at the WTO, branding the decision a massive setback for world trade. Russia announced it was banning imports of US chickens, depriving American poultry producers of half their exports.

The decision affects 400,000 tonnes of BHP's rolled steel exports, worth about $200 million, and BHP Steel chief Kirby Adams described the decision by President George W. Bush as an "affront". Mr Adams would not rule out job losses at the Port Kembla steelworks, south of Sydney.

Trade Minister Mark Vaile, who was woken at 5am by a call from US Commerce Secretary Don Evans conveying the news, said the decision would have "serious negative impacts" on Australia.

The Government flagged better laws to protect the Australian market from becoming a dumping ground for cheap steel, but Mr Vaile said the Australian industry was "well placed – it is very, very competitive".

Mr Bush, a self-proclaimed free-trader, denied he was hypocritical or acting illegally.

He said the decision, made under heavy pressure from US steel states, was levelling the playing field against subsidised foreign competition.
************************************************** ******************

The news is just "Too Bad", if you are a superior and more cost effective "non-subsidised" competitor. Bush will try to drive you out of business to protect what plainly isn't working back home.


Don't get me wrong Magik, I support Bush on many things - certainly on his stance on terrorism, and the free trade ethics he espouses. The tariff moves that he made can be defended on the basis of an attempt to address national interest, but that infers that the hypocrisy inherent in his statements wrt free trade become indefensible.

Only my 2 cents - and in US terms (conversion rate) that is worth about 1.04 cents .

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:



FiRST BUSH did not campaign on FREE TRADE, Second, CAPITALISM is not the same as FREE TRADE, Third, CAPITALISM does not IMPLY free trade.
fourth, CAPITALISM does not have anything to do with free trade.

---

I think 2,3 & 4 are more or less the same thing but never mind. As for Bush did not campaign on free trade here is a quote from his campaign announcement speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, June 12, 1999.:

'I’ll work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom. The fearful build walls. The confident demolish them. I am confident in American workers and farmers and producers. And I am confident that America’s best is the best in the world.'

and from a Republican debate in West Columbia, South Carolina Jan 7, 2000:

I would be a free trading president, a president that will work tirelessly to open up markets for agricultural products all over the world. I believe our American farmers. can compete so long as the playing field is level. That’s why I am such a strong advocate of free trade and that’s why I reject protectionism and isolation because I think it hurts our American farmers.

Looks like he was in favour of free trade there.

Before anyone complains that this is an American bashing thread, I would like to say that I have read quite a few articles from US newspapers about this subject and they all appear to be against this move.

I think that a blanket statement that we are making uninformed generalisations is a bit rich coming from you Magik.

[Davros]

Hi Donut - that looks suspiciously like strike on and strike two for the Axis of Upheaval - do you think Pauly will throw a strike or a ball (or a walk ).