By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - EU attacks 'Buy American' clause

Jackson50 said:
Kasz216 said:
I men, unless i'm wrong. The "buy american" clause is only for the bailout money... right?

Yes, the provision pertains only to the $825 billion "stimulus" bill: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the US.” (Sec. 1110(a))

 

 

Why Canada and Europe are so worried about this even though it is limited to the bailout money is because it (could be) a sign of things to come; after all, if the government is willing to limit stimulus spending to American steel what's preventing them from having similar clauses in future bills? ... It really only leaves the coutries two choices, to retaliate immediately in order to send a message to the government of the United States that action like this will not be tolerated or to wait unti further actions are taken to retaliate.

 



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
Jackson50 said:
Kasz216 said:
I men, unless i'm wrong. The "buy american" clause is only for the bailout money... right?

Yes, the provision pertains only to the $825 billion "stimulus" bill: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the US.” (Sec. 1110(a))

Why Canada and Europe are so worried about this even though it is limited to the bailout money is because it (could be) a sign of things to come; after all, if the government is willing to limit stimulus spending to American steel what's preventing them from having similar clauses in future bills? ... It really only leaves the coutries two choices, to retaliate immediately in order to send a message to the government of the United States that action like this will not be tolerated or to wait unti further actions are taken to retaliate.


I understand that other nations believe this does not portend well for free trade; I was simply answering his question. 



Seems like Obama is going to take action and remove the protectionistic language in the stimulus plan.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5655115.ece

 

Next country that needs economic lessons is France.

"The Commission believes that the US move would violate international trade rules policed by the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation (WTO). The Commission also made clear that it was keeping an equally vigilant eye on protectionist moves within Europe as France prepared to insist that its motor manufacturers buy their parts only from French companies. "



 

draik said:

This is a nice quote that I read somewhere:

 

trade protectionism is wrong at any time, but certainly during an economic downturn for a host of reasons.

We can look to recent history when Bush took a protectionist moment and imposed tarrifs against steel imports in the early 2000s. While approximately 180,000 steel jobs were protected, the reciprocal actions resulted in over 200,000 jobs lost as a result.

We must not forget that in 2007 and 2008, the highlight of our economy was our exports as our manufacturers were booming with requests from foreign demand. The rise for our exports came as a direct result of trade liberalization, free trade, and a slumping dollar. This acted as a force multiplier for our goods and services because the trade liberalization that opened up markets for our goods made them that much more desirable due to the cheap price. In fact, in 2007, every country we had a free trade agreement with resulted in a TRADE SURPLUS for our nation.

Imposing barriers to trade will indeed result in trade reciprocity and nations will close their markets to our goods. We must remember that the very definition of an export means that these are goods and services that Americans are not buying or do not want. Hence, when foreign markets become closed to our exports, exporting manufacturers and other businesses will not be able to recoup those sales losses from American consumers. Companies like GE and Caterpillar DEPEND on exports, over 60% of their sales come from overseas. Thus, any protectionist actions taken by our government will hurt many other companies.

But we must also take into account the consumer. While buying local is a wonderful concept to those who can afford it, the fact of the matter is that those with lower disposable incomes shop at Dollar Stores and Wal-Mart to stretch their dollars further and save money. The reason why Wal-Mart and Dollar stores can charge so little is because they are importing cheaper goods from overseas. But it isn't just the consumers and final destination retailiers that benefit from trade liberalization, it's all the stops in-between. Our ports, supply chain distribution companies, import/export companies, marketers, etc.. all have a stake in delivering goods and reap the benefits of good trade practices. In addition, many of the so-called "foreign goods" are actually manufactured by American companies located overseas. Unfortunately, those realities are not measured by GDP, but they ARE measured by GNP.

From our retailers, transportation systems, ports, exports, to consumers, we all benefit from trade liberalization. Putting up barriers to trade during a recession is folly, pure folly, and Smoot-Hawley ought to remind us of that reality.

Unfortunately, the "stimulus" bill now making its way through congress has protectionist language, which will hurt jobs in other countries, such as Mexico and Canada. They will respond, by putting up barriers and the recession will worsen.

Welcome to the 1930s, FDR, and a looming Depression. We have not learned from history, so we'll have to repeat those lessons again.

 

Thanks for the article. It brings up good points, especially the whole walmart thing. Perhaps you're right, disrupting free trade isnt the right move. Maybe however, stop giving other countries money like billions spent in Iraq would allow for the govt to better stabilize its nation's own economic issue.



arent you guys debating protectionism?



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:

You're missing the general arguement those economic historians make.

It's not that we lost about 3.5% of our GNP.

It's that the tariff act caused the stock market to crash.

http://www.google.com.au/books?id=zOeWjD9ka5oC&pg=PA78&dq=smoot+hawley+caused+stock+market+crash&sig=r2V-TYFgGsP_t5te4A5HSDQTJ9s

 

I agree that it contributed, but it is going way out on a limb to say that it caused the stock market crash.  Its always convincing when someone tries to reduce something down to a simple 1-1 relationship that this caused that, but there were a lot more factors at play.

I mean look at that chart on p. 83 of the link you posted.  It looks relatively similar to the two year history of the stock market currently (although the current one is certainly more gradual although the drop has been about as steep).  When ever you get really large spikes in the market, it usually means that its an artificial spike rather than a real spike, hence the phrase bubble.  You had a 100% rise of the DOW in one year.  That looks like a bubble, smells like a bubble, and acts like a bubble.

Part of it had to do with the culture at the time.  A lot of people were becoming involved in the stock market.  The market wasn't normally used to that.  It encouraged growth in the market and led to some of the highest prices the DOW had seen.  But the last ones to join in on a craze are the first ones to go too. 

Sounds a lot like the current implosion on the housing market.  A lot of people, both regular Joes and investors, were getting in on a market even though they could care less about housing.  They were speculating.  You know there is a bubble looming when you hear regular people on the street saying they should get in on the housing market.  Speculators are what drive a market to abrupt collapse (i.e. the oil market recently, great example of speculation leading to artificial highs and abrupt crashes).  It was too good to be true.  It was a bubble, something that was unsustainable and was bound to burst.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a factor, but hindsight is not always your best friend.  Many economists today who were spoon fed anti-protectionism are looking at the past with that on their mind.  Its really easy to rub out a few dots and connect the ones you want to that way.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 said:

Doesn't the EU have a clause like this? Where deals must go through EU member countries first?

I seem to recall this being the case and pushing Australia out of buisness with Europe and having to grow larger dependencies with Asia.

Interesting to see how it plays out.

 

There is no such clause. Poland is to have the anti missile defence system built on its territory and does not need the approval from anyone. We also benefit from this since the US would have to pump some couple hundred millions into our economy for that purpose.

Not to mention that if what you said was true, everyone would have to use norwegion gas and oil while we actually have many suppliers.



If i lose access to this profile as well....I'm done with this site.....You've been warned!!.....whoever you are...

Happy Wii60 user. Me and my family are a perfect example of where hardcore meets casual and together mutate into something awesome.

NinjaguyDan said:
SCREW GLOBALIZATION! It always works against the U.S., and I believe that's the plan. Ronald DICKHEAD Reagan was the asshole who started that shit, most assuredly to weaken the U.S., only a dimwitted idiot can't see that. I was there, I saw it happen in real-time, from the union busting to the repeal of the usury laws and trade tariffs, he fucked this country up!
I think it's time to start looking into closing MOST of the SEVEN HUNDRED foreign military bases as it's a COLOSSAL waste of money.
Trade war? I hope the EU enjoys the wonderfully wholesome food that China produces.
BRING IT ON FUCKERS!

 

 The majority of the food that the EU consumes is made in the EU.

Also:

China life expectancy: 73.18 years
US: 78.14 years

The difference isn't really that great when taking into account HDI and economic strength. China's food can't be that bad.

And the whole "BRING IT ON FUCKERS" implies that you have a feeling that the US would easily win a trade war. Considering that Germany alone is the world's largest exporting nation (larger than even China), and that the EU's GDP is greater than the US's... I don't think it would be all that easy.



A lot of people forget that Germany is the biggest exporter.



America would lose a trade war, horribly. We are so dependent on other countries imports it isn't even funny.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson