dcsimg
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: JFK 1961 Speech

  1. #11
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Long but I hope it explains something. call me a neo con if you like. I looked right at our steel industry. From both a government and business prospective. I am not being idealistic am I? I am representing the intention of subsidizing and stating historically what has transpired. Granted I am guilty of only analyzing steel companies within the US and not taking a broader approach.

    I think you are confused, or perhaps I am. The WTO is penalizing the US for many reasons including and not limited to Steel. But the Steel issue borders around section 201 . I am beginning to wonder if that is what you are referring too. Assuming we are on the same page this is 2 or 3 years old? Election issue, could be for some in the Steel biz who lost jobs during the decline. Several senators of Steel states called for the president to do something and initiate section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. Some history:

    In 1998 we all remember the Asian financial crisis, this flooded the American market with some really cheap steel and imports during 2001 were skyrocketing driving the price of American Steel down. See this is why we internally subsidize industry sometimes.

    So Bush launches his investigation into section 201 and answers the call by many to look into exports. "As part of our free trade agenda, we are committed to ensuring that American industry and American workers can compete on a level playing field," President Bush said . "This initiative is designed to restore market forces to world steel markets and eliminate the practices that harm our steel industry and its workers." The request was to place quotas and tariffs on imports. Something you mentions bballad but I assumed you were in support of steel companies not against them. It was they , who called for the initiation through their Washington lobbies and steel state representatives and various outlets. I have seen dozens of letters to the white house on the net.

    So you are against him reacting to the needs of the industry and initiating section 201 ? In this case the subsidizing you refer to was not to force steel makers to cut output, it was to keep them from closing. So he pressed forward with great resistance from Japanese and foreign Steel companies WITH US holdings. I am not sure how that is a violations of free trade since the companies were going bankrupt left and right. Here is a note from Rockefeller a democratic representative.

    Next

    The next few years saw political turmoil as nation after nation filed suite against the 201 action. In 2003 the WTO found the US to be in violation of fair trade rules almost 2 years after Bush enacted 201 based on the needs expressed by the industry. Is that what you are referring to in stating the WTO is pissed at us? Why did the WTO see the action as illegal? The action had a time limit and bush cut it off 16 months early stating that it served it's purpose. Perhaps the billions of dollars in "retaliation" also caused some sway? Fix one problem, cause another? Out of the frying pan into the fire?

    Right now the steel industry is mixed on the issue, some say the tariffs cause more damage, but it was the people who wanted it. So I ask again, where do you stand and what is your concern? It seemed to have done it's job, are you for the 201 measure and if so Bush did it, the WTO said it was illegal after a set period and he recalled it. The industry has also been somewhat divided on the issue over the years. I see many references to Steel consumer companies asking for the repeal of 201 as opposed to steel producing. So there ya have it. Perhaps you are angry that he recalled it early? Angry that consumers were not entirely happy. Should we go to war with the EU and Japan because were forcing a retaliation approach financially? should we have let the US Stell industry die? I can’t tell what you are referring too or upset about.

    In an idealistic world, subsidizing a world wide market would prevent overproduction from killing smaller companies, so in that respect I am idealistic but I understand idealism from reality.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Now woudn't a free trade stance be to let an industry that can't compeat in the market die?
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,193
    Letting us steel industry die? Surely the end of logic here. Steel is one of the most important industries to a country. If there must be subsidies then farming and steel should have them.
    Trappedagainbyperfectlogic.

  4. #14
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    You have already won, free trade has systematically dismantled the industrial complex of America, while it's advocates blame everyone else for over sea and South American job migrations. A country has the right to protect itself against companies that try and squeeze everyone else out of a market, thus section 201. We are talking world market influence here, not just internal. Using your formula of attack, we would have the ability to do the same with other resources. Letting international companies dominate world markets and crush competitors by using financial resources to undercut prices, ala Wal Mart style...? bballad you extreme capitalist you. I didn't know! -- joke

    Free trade is the elimination of crushing tarrifs so that compteting countries can offer goods across the globe. If one undercuts domestic products in ANY country and tips the balance of world trade, then a counter balance should be applied. Leting a foreign country with it's own interests outside of yours dominate an industry critical to infrastructure and then later set it's own price when competition is eliminated is not very smart from a business continutity perspective, a political perpective, a social economical perspective or a employment perspective. You can't criticize the president for not creating jobs and supposedly letting the economy tank and then change tune when he makes a move to protect critical industry and foreign business predators from taking advantage of the situation to corner a world critical market. Unless you opose the US position of a power and wish the destruction of it's infrastructure to continue.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,193
    RC - your last line appears to be just what so many would like to see. Obviously they are showing their true colors and intents.
    Trappedagainbyperfectlogic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •