The Dubya's Steel tariffs declaired illegal

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone else gets pissed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short sightedness.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore
Loading thread data ...

The WTO may have declared it illegal, but it dont mean poop until SCOTUS has made its decision. And its going before SCOTUS now.

Gunner

Reply to
Tavoni & Richard

I'm not with you on this, Gunner. What is it that's going before the Supreme Court? What's the issue they're deciding, in other words?

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with Asian or European tariff structures. The WTO has given them permission to raise tariffs on US products like orange juice and finished metal products. This is no longer a legal question. It is pure politics from her on out. Will he keep his big steel buddies happy and piss off Florida, California and Michigan?

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

I agree that the tariffs were not a good idea. But in the time they have been in place there has been a lot of consolidation in the steel industry. There actually was not a lot of extra profit to use for improvements, just not a lot of deficits.

Dan

Reply to
Dan Caster

Another tiny nail in the shrub's coffin. ... I hope, against all hope :-( He's already quite busy buying the next election.

Abrasha

formatting link

Reply to
Abrasha

I don't think the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in this issue. BTW

- the USA has lost the majority of the recent WTO rulings. The EU is poised to slap 100% duty tariffs on a number of popular American exports if Bush does not back down in accord with the WTO. The likely scenario is that Bush will refuse to back down, the EU (and Asians) will institute the 100% tariffs, exports will come to a halt, more jobs will be lost, and the White House will tell us that not being able to export is actually better for us - there will be more US made goods for us to buy.

I love it.

Regards,

Marv

Ed Huntress wrote:

Reply to
Marv Soloff

US softwood lumber tariffs against Canada where also found unsuppotable by the WTO last month. However the US government was given another 100 days to spice up their claims and try and prove Canadian softwood lumber inports into the USA where actually damaging the domestic producers.

I doubt Bush will overturn the tariffs no matter what the WTO says so the American c> >

Reply to
Jimbo

The only reason I can think of that the S.C. would get involved is if someone with standing is challenging the constitutionality of the treaty itself. I don't think that's happening, but maybe Gunner heard something today that I haven't heard yet.

As for the WTO, don't expect it to last another five years. The Cancun debacle cripplied its future; the US is making bilateral and regional trade agreements that are undermining it left and right; the Asians are trying to do the same thing; and it will collapse like a house of cards if the US pulls out. We have to give six months notice if we plan to drop the agreement.

I believe it's doomed, and that it was from the very beginning.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

If you can't win, spin...

Jon

Reply to
Jon Anderson

I can't say anything other than "It's about time" The worm is finally turning. In my region of Canada we have been hung out to dry by protectionist tariffs. We have lumber we now cannot export. Canada never has the balls like Europe to fight back with the steel thing. We have to wait until the housing cost skyrocket in California and tariffs are reduced when the population realizes they are being screwed by their own countrymen in power. Randy

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:Rg4sb.15067$62.13280@lakeread04...

Reply to
Randy Zimmerman

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

It's a little like the 30 % tariff on Canadian soft wood. It's destroying the lumber business in Canada and adding a couple of thousand to the cost of new homes in the US. The good part is that the American lumber industry is able to jack up their prices about 30% and make a ton. What does seem funny though is that while the US lumber barons say that Canadians do not pay enough stumpage on their timber, they do not mind buying all the Canadian (tariff free) logs they can get their hands on to process into lumber themselves.

Just seems odd to me that the US can import this same, below fair market value wood for processing in their own mills while charging Canadians a 30 % tariff to do the same thing. ???

Glenn Ashmore wrote:

Reply to
Collin

The best part was that an american owned the cow.

Glenn Ashmore wrote:

Reply to
Collin

As I recall it..the legality of whether or not Bush could set that steel tarrif all by his lonesome. Its been in the papers out here in the hinterlands.

Gunner

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

Reply to
Gunner

Recently..... In Canada..... An American businessman was interviewed about his recent relocation of his American company to Canada.

He went on to explain in some detail the protectionist attitude of the American government and how it had finally forced him to relocate his company to Canada.

His product depended on a raw material that was both produced in the US and imported into the US. It had very high tariffs attached to it, and that particular raw material was controlled by a small number of US companies who for decades had enjoyed artificially high prices for their material due to intense lobbying and the sucess of high tariffs.

The finished product was to many a national icon whoes history goes back almost a hundred years. They had been located in the same American community for their entire history and untill the day they moved out, the welcome sign to that community reminded the world that this town proudly manufactured this companies product. A product used by billions of people in the preceeding century but also enjoyed by billions of non Americans from around the word. The product was a household name and when America marched to war this product marched with the soldiers just like coca cola and GM cars. The product had wide spread appeal to all generations from kids to seniors, regardless of color, sex or any other consideration. One could safely say that virtually everyone who ever tried the product..... liked it.

And yet the manufacturer was finally forced by the economics of a protectionist attitude in the US to move to a more receptive coutry where they were free to buy their raw materials in a free market which saved them about half of their production costs.

Can anyone name the raw material, and the finished product....???????

Reply to
Johnny Canuck

You're talking about sugar, and Lifesavers.

Out of sympathy, we're throwing in a few hundred dentists and nutritional therapists with the deal.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

WOW!!!..... I'm impressed - and you are correct.

Reply to
Johnny Canuck

I'm curious as to how you can "achieve" balanced trade. Certainly not with protectionist tarriffs that almost never help(usually hurt). Trade is (or should be) a free mkt process. and a "balance" would simply be coincidental if it were achieved without interference. I know there's allegations of dumping and subsidizing industries that supposedly provide unfair competition etc. but those allegations will always be there. The days when we could manipulate any major markets are long gone and getting more so, as more countries come on line with all the same stuff we try to market. we may as well get used to it and try some American ingenuity rather than tarrifs to be more competitive. Greg Sefton

Reply to
Bray Haven

Reply to
Paul Armstrong

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.