U,S. Protectionism, 1929 all over again?

**Exarecr** · 30 Jan 09,, 13:21

There is for reasons that leave me absolutely sick to my stomach, a huge ground swell of public support for the new U.S. President in leftist Canada that is almost "religiously euphoric", in its presentation. To squander this over protectionist legislation that would not only ruin hundreds of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border, it would unravel all free trade agreements which would of course include Canada's energy sales and in what new direction we should take them should we be forced to turn off the tap. This is how it all started in 1929.

When It was reported recently bankers took 18 billion in bonuses from the aid package last year, it doesn't take much to see why nobody has faith in America's book keeping or is capability to pay off a national debt that has as many zeroes attached to it as there are stars in our Galaxy. To keep cheap... very cheap Chinese steel imports and other suspect imports flooding N. America out of the U.S. the Americans are ready to kill our industry and trade agreements. So this is the concept I get out of all this.

The U.S. wants to destroy the Canadian economy because China is exporting to much to the U.S.? That damn vein on my forehead is pulsating again...... Just remember who your real friends are historically, and who's doing all the dying side by side in Afghanistan. Let's create a North American (U.S. and Canada only) trade zone that would compete against other trading blocs with more clout.

The Mexicans would only be allowed in once the showed seriousness in stopping the flow of illegal economic immigration that is now starting to strain our social net in Canada and of course we all know how much this has affected U.S. social networks. We should be standing shoulder to shoulder because you know damned well other trading blocks don't give a crap about North America.

**gunnut** · 30 Jan 09,, 18:04

I hope Obama is not foolish enough to enact protectionist measures that will further damage trade.

**zraver** · 30 Jan 09,, 20:10

protectionism carte blanc won't work, but I think in some cases target tariffs might be in order.

**Roosveltrepub** · 30 Jan 09,, 20:28

I think presssuring China to float it's currency and going after them if they are dumping is right and appropriate. It was a Right wing republican who last gave us steel protectionism and before him it was a different right wing Republican. Where is the push to decouple from NAFTA? So, I guess your argument is not to do exactly what the Republican Administration did the last reccession. I think it's a good one and would expect Obama to use a scalpel to go after dumping before he used a sledgehammer to break something ala Bush.

U.S. Imposes New Steel Tariffs

Tuesday , March 05, 2002

The Bush administration announced Tuesday that the United States would impose tariffs of up to 30 percent on steel imports in a decision aimed at helping the ailing U.S. steel industry and certain to anger major U.S. trading partners in Europe and Asia.

Didn't Reagan put all sorts of import restrictions and tariffs on during the recession in 82 as well? I don't recall Clinton doing that. Lest we not forget it was a democratic President who signed NAFTA . The right seems to talk the talk but when when it comes to walking the walk....

Herodotus · 30 Jan 09,, 21:57

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Didn't Reagan put all sorts of import restrictions and tariffs on during the recession in 82 as well? I don't recall Clinton doing that. Lest we not forget it was a democratic President who signed NAFTA . The right seems to talk the talk but when when it comes to walking the walk....

Reagan wasn't above using tariffs, I remember him using them against the Japanese in the late '80s: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107es.html

I also don't know that the US can really pressure China to float its currency. What are we going to threaten them with?

**Parihaka** · 30 Jan 09,, 22:02

:Sighs: here we go again. Europe introduces massive farming subsidies, the US will no doubt follow, just as they've introduced anti-Chinese steel tariffs.

Fortunately we have FTO's with the so called 'developing' economies so 'the west' won't be getting nearly so many of our fine products any more.

**gunnut** · 30 Jan 09,, 22:06

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Didn't Reagan put all sorts of import restrictions and tariffs on during the recession in 82 as well? I don't recall Clinton doing that. Lest we not forget it was a democratic President who signed NAFTA . The right seems to talk the talk but when when it comes to walking the walk....

Who owned the congress during Reagan's and Clinton's administrations?

Herodotus · 30 Jan 09,, 22:08

Originally Posted by gunnut

Who owned the congress during Reagan's and Clinton's administrations?

The Republicans held the Senate from '81-'87.

**gunnut** · 30 Jan 09,, 23:41

Originally Posted by Herodotus

The Republicans held the Senate from '81-'87.

Democrats have held the House from the 1950s to 1990s.

**Roosveltrepub** · 31 Jan 09,, 02:27

Originally Posted by gunnut

Who owned the congress during Reagan's and Clinton's administrations?

Presidents sign and negotiate treaties congress ratifies them.

**Roosveltrepub** · 31 Jan 09,, 02:31

Originally Posted by gunnut

Democrats have held the House from the 1950s to 1990s.

It's really a moot point Reagan proposed and was in favor of tariffs in many industries. My only point was as with fiscal conservatism the republican party plays one tune and dances to another now a days. Tom Delay/Hastert and GWB left the party morally bankrupt in regards to fiscal conservatism

**texacali** · 02 Feb 09,, 23:19

I will testify that the well casing we have been recieving from China in the last year has been subject to a failure rate in pressure application and tension that is more than I have seen in the past with American or Mexican manufacture.

**Shek** · 03 Feb 09,, 00:26

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

I think it's a good one and would expect Obama to use a scalpel to go after dumping before he used a sledgehammer to break something ala Bush.

Describe dumping and empirical examples of when it's actually occurred.

**Ironduke** · 03 Feb 09,, 00:33

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Reagan wasn't above using tariffs, I remember him using them against the Japanese in the late '80s: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107es.html

I also don't know that the US can really pressure China to float its currency. What are we going to threaten them with?

Herodotus, not sure where you were going with your reference to Japan, but there was a basis for trade restriction (at least in my opinion) because of the non-tariff trade barriers the Japanese enforced against American products.

Let me quote from a book of mine, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes, about Japanese policies after WWII:

Japan went along with this move to freer trade, but no country was so effective in enforcing nontariff barriers. The ingenuity of Japanese contumacy became legendary. Baseball bats were drilled on arrival to make sure they were all-wood. High tech new medical equipment was generously allowed in, but the procedures using these machines were excluded from health coverage (the ban was lifted once the Japanese had built their own devices). Automobiles were taken apart and checked inside and out before they might be sold to consumers. Once, vexed by increasing imports of French skis, the Japanese tried to preclude them on the pretext that Japanese snow was different. The French responded by threatening to exclude Japanese motorcycles on the ground that French roads were different. Understood; the Japanese dropped their plans.

All of these vexations testify to a sly cunning, of a sort to permit indefinite delays, evasions, and flip-flops, and always with politely straight face.

In a case such as this, where non-tariff barriers designed to have the effect of tariffs are so extreme as to preclude exports to the Japanese market, there needs to be some hardball played.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

:Sighs: here we go again. Europe introduces massive farming subsidies, the US will no doubt follow, just as they've introduced anti-Chinese steel tariffs.

Fortunately we have FTO's with the so called 'developing' economies so 'the west' won't be getting nearly so many of our fine products any more.

In the case of China, the undervaluing of the yuan benefits the American consumer in the form of cheaper imports. However, it hurts the American worker in the form of pricing American goods out of the market by making them more expensive. Undervaluation of the yuan vs. the dollar has the same exact effect on American exports as a tariff.

I think an ideal solution would be to assess a tariff on all Chinese exports in exact proportion to the undervaluation of their currency. I think it would have the effect of forcing them to take a hard look at their monetary policy.

**Parihaka** · 03 Feb 09,, 00:50

Originally Posted by Ironduke

In the case of China, the undervaluing of the yuan benefits the American consumer in the form of cheaper imports. However, it hurts the American worker in the form of pricing American goods out of the market by making them more expensive. Undervaluation of the yuan vs. the dollar has the same exact effect on American exports as a tariff.

I think an ideal solution would be to assess a tariff on all Chinese exports in exact proportion to the undervaluation of their currency. I think it would have the effect of forcing them to take a hard look at their monetary policy.

Then again America could just devalue it's dollar