WTF - thanks for the help now we're closing the doors - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aphex140 · 02-03-2009, 04:57 AM

Have fears over this being the start of a trade isolationist policy

EU attacks 'Buy American' clause

Buy American is meant to ensure that only US goods are used in public works

The EU has increased its pressure on the US to reconsider the "Buy American" clause in the $800bn (£567bn) economic recovery package now before Congress.

The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill.

A European Commission spokesman said it was the "worst possible signal" the Obama administration could send out.

The EU will launch a complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) if the clause remains, the spokesman said.

The EU and Canadian ambassadors to Washington have already warned that the clause could promote protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves.

The rescue plan has already been approved by the US House of Representatives and is under discussion in the Senate this week.

Mixed trade signals

"There isn't a great deal of scope for doing much more but if America went ahead and did this we would have to take it up with the World Trade Organisation," the European Commission trade spokesman, Peter Power, told the BBC's Chris Mason in Brussels.

British Conservative Members of the European Parliament warned of the dangers of "a new economic iron curtain" being drawn across Europe.

We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis
John Bruton
EU ambassador to Washington

Obama diary: First 100 days
Dire warnings about protectionism
The clause "sends a terrible protectionist signal to the rest of the world, and particularly the EU," said Syed Kamall, the Conservative international trade spokesman in the European Parliament.

The White House has said it is reviewing the Buy American part of the stimulus bill, although Vice President Joe Biden said last week that it was legitimate to have some portion of it in the final measure.

Barack Obama's signals as a presidential candidate on the campaign trail last year that he could rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement were seen as a political gesture to win round the sceptical white working class vote, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington.

Perhaps that has become more important with the economic crisis, but it leaves one wondering where the Obama administration really stands on free trade, our correspondent adds.

'Retaliatory risk'

EU Ambassador to Washington John Bruton said that, if passed, the measure could erode global leadership on free trade.

"We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis."

President Barack Obama
Barack Obama says he expects a "difficult few days"
Canada's ambassador to Washington warned Senate leaders that if Buy American was in the final legislation, it would set a negative precedent with global repercussions.

"The United States will lose the moral authority to pressure others not to introduce protectionist policies," Michael Wilson wrote in a letter to the senators.

Canada was hoping to be exempted from any Buy American measures, said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day.

"These protectionist measures, in a time of recession, only make things worse," he told broadcaster CBC.

"It can only trigger retaliatory action and we don't want to go there."
HAVE YOUR SAY

At times like this of course a domestic government should encourage the consumption of home produced goods

There is also opposition from some senior US Republicans who say the measure could start trade wars.

Mr Obama has urged the US Congress not to delay his stimulus plan over modest differences.

The Democrat leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, has said he hopes the stimulus can be approved by the end of the week.

It is unlikely that the package will be able to pass the Senate without Republican support.

Meanwhile, Mr Obama is expected to name Republican Senator Judd Gregg as commerce secretary.

Mr Obama will hope that Mr Gregg's nomination can help secure approval for the stimulus package, our Washington correspondent says.

Mr Gregg would be the third Republican in Mr Obama's cabinet.

The president's first choice for the post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, withdrew following questions about his links to big business.

I appreciate it is an economic recovery package- but still very concerned !!

Nisses · 02-03-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Mr Obama will hope that Mr Gregg's nomination can help secure approval for the stimulus package, our Washington correspondent says.

Good to see things are changing and the most qualified are getting the jobs they should

ASU2003 · 02-03-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Mr Obama will hope that Mr Gregg's nomination can help secure approval for the stimulus package, our Washington correspondent says.

Is that an opinion, fact, or a second hand (no names given source) leaked info?

And how much EU steel do you think was going to be used anyway? It's just not PC to put in a "Don't buy Mexican, China, India, Vietnam, or anyplace else that has cheap labor and lax environmental controls act".

tisonlyi · 02-03-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Is that an opinion, fact, or a second hand (no names given source) leaked info?

And how much EU steel do you think was going to be used anyway? It's just not PC to put in a "Don't buy Mexican, China, India, Vietnam, or anyplace else that has cheap labor and lax environmental controls act".

US Steel Imports & Exports: Canada and China?s Annual $25 Billion Iron and Steel Trade With USA

Quote:

American Iron and Steel Imports

Developing countries collectively known as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) exported US$11 billion worth of iron and steel to the United States in 2007.

Over that same period, other G7 member countries (Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada) shipped $14.4 billion in iron and steel exports to America.

More than you'd think.

Baraka_Guru · 02-04-2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

More than you'd think.

Quite more, yes.

Just one example from your posted article:

Quote:

Canada sends the most ferrous metal exports into America, half of the G7’s $14.4 billion total exports to the U.S.

Canada ... US$7.6 billion in iron and steel materials and products
Japan ... $2.3 billion
Germany ... $1.7 billion
UK … $1 billion
Italy … $1 billion
France … $774.6 million.

This is the reason why the Canadian government is up in arms about this too.

The Canadian Press: Canada's fears of U.S. protectionism justified, says top Democrat

pan6467 · 02-04-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aphex140

Have fears over this being the start of a trade isolationist policy

EU attacks 'Buy American' clause

Buy American is meant to ensure that only US goods are used in public works

That's talking just governmental built bridges, buildings etc. Private companies will still have the right to buy from other countries.

Quote:

The EU has increased its pressure on the US to reconsider the "Buy American" clause in the $800bn (£567bn) economic recovery package now before Congress.

The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill.

A European Commission spokesman said it was the "worst possible signal" the Obama administration could send out.

The EU will launch a complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) if the clause remains, the spokesman said.

Fuck the EU, Fuck the WTO. Where were they when every other country subsidized their steel and other industries and watched those policies destroy us.

Where are they and what are they doing to stop 3rd World and Chinese sweatshops and slave labor?

Oh wait, they are profiting on those. To these scumbags, go fuck yourselves, we have every right to protect our industries and jobs.

Quote:

The EU and Canadian ambassadors to Washington have already warned that the clause could promote protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves.

That's it I'm scared.... time to go watch Canadian Bacon.

Quote:

The rescue plan has already been approved by the US House of Representatives and is under discussion in the Senate this week.

As well it should be.

Quote:

Mixed trade signals

"There isn't a great deal of scope for doing much more but if America went ahead and did this we would have to take it up with the World Trade Organisation," the European Commission trade spokesman, Peter Power, told the BBC's Chris Mason in Brussels.

British Conservative Members of the European Parliament warned of the dangers of "a new economic iron curtain" being drawn across Europe.

We're finally finding balls to stand up and save our industries and 1000's of jobs and the EU doesn't like it because now we're playing by their rules. GO FUCK YOURSELVES. We are a SOVEREIGN nation not your fucking colonies and world police. We need to rebuild at home and worry about our own first.

Quote:

We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis
John Bruton
EU ambassador to Washington

Worry about your own countries then. Where were you to foot the bill on our rebuilid of Europe and Japan after WW2? Where is your economic aid to help our citizens? Yeah, go fuck yourselves.

Quote:

Obama diary: First 100 days
Dire warnings about protectionism
The clause "sends a terrible protectionist signal to the rest of the world, and particularly the EU," said Syed Kamall, the Conservative international trade spokesman in the European Parliament.

The White House has said it is reviewing the Buy American part of the stimulus bill, although Vice President Joe Biden said last week that it was legitimate to have some portion of it in the final measure.

Why worry, it's just government financed works. Privately owned businesses still have the right to buy from anywhere. If we build a bridge here with taxpayer money, then we should build it with US made material andd put US citizens and companies to work. Every other industrialized country does it. We shouldn't because we're the US??????? Fuck you.

Quote:

Barack Obama's signals as a presidential candidate on the campaign trail last year that he could rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement were seen as a political gesture to win round the sceptical white working class vote, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington.

NAFTA was a mistake.

Quote:

Perhaps that has become more important with the economic crisis, but it leaves one wondering where the Obama administration really stands on free trade, our correspondent adds.

Fuck free trade when you tariff OUR goods out of competition and then cry if we want to tariff yours even a little.

Quote:

'Retaliatory risk'

EU Ambassador to Washington John Bruton said that, if passed, the measure could erode global leadership on free trade.

"We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis."

Blah blah blah

Quote:

President Barack Obama
Barack Obama says he expects a "difficult few days"
Canada's ambassador to Washington warned Senate leaders that if Buy American was in the final legislation, it would set a negative precedent with global repercussions.

"The United States will lose the moral authority to pressure others not to introduce protectionist policies," Michael Wilson wrote in a letter to the senators.

Canada was hoping to be exempted from any Buy American measures, said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day.

"These protectionist measures, in a time of recession, only make things worse," he told broadcaster CBC.

"It can only trigger retaliatory action and we don't want to go there."
HAVE YOUR SAY

Why because taxpayer funded projects will be made with taxpayer made product? Fuck you. You still have the private sector to sell to.

Quote:

At times like this of course a domestic government should encourage the consumption of home produced goods

Amen. you cannot get out of a recession or depression if you continue to buy foreign made materials and not put people at home to work. Plus, you have no tax base if no one is working or there is no industry. But the EU and WTO would seemingly like to keep us down.

Quote:

There is also opposition from some senior US Republicans who say the measure could start trade wars.

START???????? START trade wars?????? lol..... we have been in one and we haven't been doing shit to protect ourselves, we finally decide to grow some balls and do what's right for OUR country and now we are being the bad guys? Go fuck yourself.

Quote:

Mr Obama has urged the US Congress not to delay his stimulus plan over modest differences.

The Democrat leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, has said he hopes the stimulus can be approved by the end of the week.

It is unlikely that the package will be able to pass the Senate without Republican support.

Meanwhile, Mr Obama is expected to name Republican Senator Judd Gregg as commerce secretary.

Mr Obama will hope that Mr Gregg's nomination can help secure approval for the stimulus package, our Washington correspondent says.

And that's why the GOP is no longer in power over anything. Reagan, BushI, the GOP led congress and BushII started this and kept it alive, and look where we are. No industry, what industry we have is going bankrupt, wages going backwards except for the ultra rich and we're having to buy the cheapest goods because it's all we can afford and those goods are made outside the US so more US workers end up on the unemployment line.

Not rocket science, we need to protect our own, we have helped and helped other countries to the point of it being totally detrimental to ourselves. Here's an idea for you countries out there..... rely on your own fucking selves and get off our dole.We can't afford to carry you any longer and you sure as Hell never helped us. You only want to scream when we decide to stand up for ourselves.

Quote:

Mr Gregg would be the third Republican in Mr Obama's cabinet.

The president's first choice for the post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, withdrew following questions about his links to big business.

Quote:

I appreciate it is an economic recovery package- but still very concerned !!

About what? Putting US citizens to work? The WTO should never have the ability to dictate to us what materials we need to use for public projects. They have never done shit to level the playing field for us in the past and now, now when we have a president that has some balls and is going to level the field, they want to cry and bitch and claim it's unfair????? Fuck them.

Nisses · 02-04-2009, 07:46 AM

Pan,

Next time summarize your post in:

We grew some balls, and we're tired of playing world police so we'll let somebody else take over.
Oh yeah, and go fuck yourself.

Sorry, but your whole post sort of reeks of juvenile tantrum

I think you might find the real world is somewhat more intricately linked than you would like it.

roachboy · 02-04-2009, 08:00 AM

i'm a bit confused by this tempest in a teapot as well. i remember watching the dismantling of the american steel and iron industries across the 1980s. one of the central symbolic moments was the transition from us steel to us-x, the transition from steel manufacturer to holding company. this process unfolded in plain sight--among the side phenomena it produced was the emergence of ceo's who specialized in riding out implosions and/or bankruptcies and deriving profit--and often quite alot of it--from the process. i don't know where people were at that point in terms of getting all huffy about the transformations of industrial geography and it's implications for quaint notions like "national sovereignty"....that's all done now effectively. all done. nothing to complain about really as we all sat around and watched it happen---maybe because we weren't being told that there were Problems that attended this process many of us didn't see that there were any--only now are folk waking up from their neoliberal slumbers and trying to figure out what the fuck happened.

there are alot of reasons for the transformation of steel production. but i don't have time to make a primer at the moment---maybe the article tislyoni posted above will help in this respect. but think continuous casting in the longer durée, and the transnationalization of stock ownership in the medium durée, and the delusion of "free trade" in the shorter one.

i was going to post data about the international steel & iron trades over the past decade but thought that the format i found was maybe a bit opaque.

it seems to me that this "buy american" gesture is largely meaningless, so i'm not sure what folk are getting all bent about. the united states imports vastly more steel than it produces, and vastly more than it exports. it's not obvious what kinds of ownership extends through steel industry style supply chains at this point either. what is obvious is that "buy american" means outstripping capacity to produce within the territorial limits of the united states. the only way that meme could function would be for it to be linked to an industrial sector policy aimed at re-growing a domestically oriented steel production infrastructure through one or another adaptation of miti or some such. i think such a move would be a good idea in the longer run, but it isn't present at the moment, so it means nothing.

dippin · 02-04-2009, 08:17 AM

Obama said in the Charlie Gibson interview that he wants any provisions that go against WTO provisions to be removed from the final bill.

Oh, and to the guy throwing the tantrum: the US is still the biggest player in the WTO, it is still significantly more protectionist than most 3rd world countries, and the rest of the world has been a net lender of huge proportions to the US.

pan6467 · 02-04-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nisses

Pan,

Next time summarize your post in:

We grew some balls, and we're tired of playing world police so we'll let somebody else take over.
Oh yeah, and go fuck yourself.

Pretty much.

Quote:

Sorry, but your whole post sort of reeks of juvenile tantrum

Sorry, I just consider it a slap at our sovereignity and the ability to put people to work when our government has finally decided that it should only buy US made product.

Nowhere does it say (that I can see), nor should it, that PRIVATE companies can't buy whatever product from wherever they want or need.

I don't believe it is juvenile to believe or demand that our country use taxpayer money to buy only US made materials and use only US workers. You keep a tax base and people working that way.

How I may have said it, in the previous post, may have been juvenile. That is why I am not a politician but an addictions counselor. I speak with passion and honestly, may not always be the most mature or well educated way, but I leave no doubts as to where I stand on something I am passionate about.

Quote:

I think you might find the real world is somewhat more intricately linked than you would like it.

I would love for the world to work together but, it should not come one sided nor at the cost of many losing jobs. That instills hostility and resistance to achieving a peaceful world where ALL can be free and productive.

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 11 : 42 : 15-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Obama said in the Charlie Gibson interview that he wants any provisions that go against WTO provisions to be removed from the final bill.

So basically he's not going to do anything and let tax payer money continue buying imported goods and put US citizens out of work? Grow some balls, Mr. President.

Quote:

Oh, and to the guy throwing the tantrum: the US is still the biggest player in the WTO, it is still significantly more protectionist than most 3rd world countries, and the rest of the world has been a net lender of huge proportions to the US.

The guy throwing the tantrum has a name, it's PAN6467.

Really, how are we more protectionist? I'd really like to hear this. Considering China and Japan can subsidize their steel industry and cry if we even talk about raising tariffs on their product, yet they will tax ours out of competition. And it's not just steel.

We bow to the WTO and without any fight freely abide by their rules. And if we don't and they complain we acquiesce to their demands even if it is detrimental to our nation. Yet, China and others out there can use slave labor, child labor, sweatshops and pay non liveable wages and the WTO says and does nothing, except maybe want us and OUR US tax money to police that country? Yeah..... about that. here's a news flash for you: WE CAN'T FUCKING AFFORD IT ANYMORE AND THE PLAYING FIELD THE WTO IS SUPPOSED TO KEEP LEVEL HAS BEEN A JOKE AND HEAVILY DETRIMENTAL TO THE US AND HER PEOPLE AND YOU FUCKS DON'T CARE YOU WANT MORE AND MORE FROM US.

(So sorry, that's a juvenile rant but so true.)

So please enlighten me how we are more protectionist than anyone else out there, I'd really like to know.

JumpinJesus · 02-04-2009, 05:44 PM

Pan, you seem to have gone completely off the deep end. Sorry, but I don't recognize the guy posting in your name anymore.

I don't know if I'm the only one who sees it, but it makes responding to you almost entirely pointless.

tisonlyi · 02-04-2009, 06:11 PM

You really think that the American steel industry is locked out of China by tariffs?

*headslap*

There are problems around the world with regard to tariffs and trade barriers, sure. The US has the casting vote in the WTO, World Bank and IMF. In effect, the agenda of those institutions are set in the white house.

When the US is touting that it will rip up its own regulations, just to suit noisy idiots with vision as far as their eyelashes, then the rest of the world has a perfect right to kick up a stink.

You might want to look at the case against the US in the area of sugar, particularly with regard to Jamaica. In return for IMF loans after they left the British Empire, the IMF demanded they lower import tariffs on sugar. Cheap, subsidised sugar from the US flooded their market and decimated the internal and external market for Jamaica's number one crop. Jamaica still has nothing in the way of internal industry or agriculture to speak of. The USA was even campaigning to have their protected banana market in the UK ripped to shreds...

Heavy industry was crucified in the UK post-WW2, with the USA (and others) cheering the process along.

Protectionist policies (and other things) in the developed nations turned what should have been a 2-4 year problem during the 30's into a decade-or-more-long crisis that was only solved by World War.

Enjoy those balls while you've got them.

dippin · 02-04-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The guy throwing the tantrum has a name, it's PAN6467.

Really, how are we more protectionist? I'd really like to hear this. Considering China and Japan can subsidize their steel industry and cry if we even talk about raising tariffs on their product, yet they will tax ours out of competition. And it's not just steel.

We bow to the WTO and without any fight freely abide by their rules. And if we don't and they complain we acquiesce to their demands even if it is detrimental to our nation. Yet, China and others out there can use slave labor, child labor, sweatshops and pay non liveable wages and the WTO says and does nothing, except maybe want us and OUR US tax money to police that country? Yeah..... about that. here's a news flash for you: WE CAN'T FUCKING AFFORD IT ANYMORE AND THE PLAYING FIELD THE WTO IS SUPPOSED TO KEEP LEVEL HAS BEEN A JOKE AND HEAVILY DETRIMENTAL TO THE US AND HER PEOPLE AND YOU FUCKS DON'T CARE YOU WANT MORE AND MORE FROM US.

(So sorry, that's a juvenile rant but so true.)

So please enlighten me how we are more protectionist than anyone else out there, I'd really like to know.

I would love concrete examples of how the WTO is in any way more lax against other nations, and I would like concrete examples of the US "bowing down" to the WTO. Of the 47 cases the US brought against other nations from 95 to 2005, it won 44. And I don't know if you know this, but in case of non compliance, what the WTO does is allow retaliatory quotas and tariffs. In other words, the US, being the largest market in the world, is still more powerful than other nations in enforcing WTO's decisions.

As far as labor rights, they are not a part of WTO's tasks. In any case, the majority of companies that are using that slave labor are American owned companies who repatriate the profits to the US.

With regards to subsidies, in farm subsidies alone the US spends 17 billion dollars on average each year, not to mention non-tariff barriers like quotas and so on.

And while US tariffs on manufactured products is very low, it still has incredibly high tariffs on agricultural goods, steel, and other primary goods which is what developing nations are specialized in.
Just as a comparison, the average tariff that Brazilian goods pay when they enter the US market is 46%, while the average tariff that American goods pay when imported by Brazil is 14%.

In fact, most of the criticism of the WTO from around the world is precisely that it tends to favor developed nations disproportionately, especially the US.

Maybe next time less "fuck you"s and more reasoned, data based discussion will be more productive.

streak_56 · 02-08-2009, 09:52 PM

I thought protectionist caused the "great depression" to get worse?

Pan,

I completely understand where you're coming from. When I first heard this bill, I thought it made sense to me, I got that whatever projects were covered by this bill would only use US materials. Good deal for the US right? Wrong! Canada trades most with the US than any other country, we probably would still import to the US but at high tariffed prices. This isn't a problem that the US should go in alone, the US needs other countries that are in the same situation, that have needs to that are mutually beneficial to both parties. Just closing your borders to anything but american products is ludicrous.

Other countries are suffering just as bad as the US, the world needs to come together and the WTO is just as important as it ever was.

pan6467 · 02-09-2009, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by streak_56

I thought protectionist caused the "great depression" to get worse?

Pan,

I completely understand where you're coming from. When I first heard this bill, I thought it made sense to me, I got that whatever projects were covered by this bill would only use US materials. Good deal for the US right? Wrong! Canada trades most with the US than any other country, we probably would still import to the US but at high tariffed prices. This isn't a problem that the US should go in alone, the US needs other countries that are in the same situation, that have needs to that are mutually beneficial to both parties. Just closing your borders to anything but american products is ludicrous.

Other countries are suffering just as bad as the US, the world needs to come together and the WTO is just as important as it ever was.

It's not Canada we should be worried about it's China, Japan, and countries that send us product that comes in cheap with low tariffs but they won't buy anything from us and tariff our product out of competition.

The world is in this together.

And from what I see this bill as saying it says that ONLY product that gets money from Obama's stimulus plan is affected.

Nike, Wal*Mart and so on as long as they take no tax money can keep buying from sweatshops in China or wherever.

I truly see nothing wrong in if you receive tax money you must use US made product. If you don't there is no reason for you to receive aid because your not helping the economy by buying imports and your not putting people to work at home to rebuild the tax base needed to finance what we paid you.

If we build a bridge, it should be with US steel, concrete and workers. If we build a federal/state/local government building it should be built with only US made product from the carpeting to the desks to the structure itself. The taxpayers paid for it, the taxpayers should be paid to make the product used in it.

Now if Trump wants to build a skyscraper in Manhattan, and he takes no government funds for it, he can use whatever country's product he wants.

That's the difference and that's what my above rants were trying to say.

I'm sorry if the world doesn't like it but if our taxpayers aren't working we have no taxes coming in, and all those countries we help won't get any aid.

I honestly don't see how anyone can argue that GOVERNMENT funded projects should not have to use US made product exclusively.it's suicide to the country and a kick in the ribs to hard working US workers and taxpayers.

roachboy · 02-09-2009, 06:55 AM

like mister lif once said, and in the tone that he said it: welcome to the world, pan.

"made in the united states" is meaningless.
it does not matter what you or anyone else would prefer to see done with tax money--if the manufacturing capacity does not exist, there's noplace to buy from. this is what globalizing capitalism has meant. the neoliberal cheerleading enabled folk who were not looking to pretend to themselves that none of this was happening, it seems. but it's been a long process, the fragmentation of production, particularly in heavy industries, and the exporting of the component elements of manufacturing to places with cheap labor, available technologies and repressive union laws. in general....

what does "made in america" mean?

that the majority of stock is held by american residents?
stock trades transnationally, and so you cannot tell at any given point what ownership pattern obtains at the level of stock. so you have to go firm by firm, based on annual report information (if that geography of ownership is understood as important in that context--capital is capital and these reports are about charting flows for shareholders and not about providing maps of shareholding itself back to the readers of the reports...)

that the corporate headquarters is located in the united states?
what does that mean? that the dominant corporate language is english, that the physical headquarters is somewhere in the states, that it's corporate culture is likely to embody all the negative features of american corporate culture (and such positive features as there are)...and maybe it provides some jobs for the executive cadre, it's support staff and groundskeepers)...

buy american? what are you talking about?
you can't tell from looking at labels where commodities are produced because of the rigging of country of origin definitions across the 1980s such that the "country of origin" does not correspond to nation-state boundaries and refers to a space in which the largest percentage of value added takes place---so if an item requires various steps of assembly and that assembly happens in a series of "free-trade zones" located in many different nation-state spaces, the country of origin will say "united states". what does that refer to? the legal status allotted to free trade zone spaces, not geography.

this is the world that the free-marketeers engineered, pan. it was class warfare from the beginning, and it's outcomes are only now becoming apparent to folk who did not want to look at this aspect of reality over the past 35 years. but if you have looked, this is in no way surprising.

so i fully expect to see that language erased from the compromise package.

o yeah--your position about the wto indicates that you don't know the first thing about it. up to this point, the americans have acted as if the wto was a direct extension of it's foreign policy, with the result that rulings against american corporations have been ignored while those against other countries are enforced if it suits american interests at the time.

the world is just like this now.
wake up.

guyy · 02-09-2009, 08:00 AM

Free trade, pfft.

A fall off in trade is a symptom, not a cause. That's as true now as it was in the 1930s. A crisis of capitalism occurs when the most basic capitalist transactions do not take place. Capitalist relations are not reproducing themselves, or they do so only at a level which cannot maintain the current level of development. Widget makers do not have the money to make widgets. Widget buyers do not have the money to buy them. Lenders do not lend money. The bottleneck is in the cash nexus, and not the regulation of trade.

As for protectionism, the nation is an inadequate unit of analysis. Do American capitalists benefit from "free trade"? That is self-evident. Does it screw American workers? Of course!

roachboy · 02-17-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Union Talks Seen as Key as G.M. Makes Case for Funds
By BILL VLASIC and NICK BUNKLEY

DETROIT — With its access to a government lifeline possibly at risk, General Motors executives were locked in intense negotiations Monday with leaders of the United Automobile Workers over ways to cut its vast bills for retiree health care.

G.M. will file what is expected to be the largest restructuring plan of its 100-year history on Tuesday, a step it must take to justify its use of a $13.4 billion loan package from the federal government.

The plan will outline in considerable detail, over as many as 900 pages, how G.M. will further cut its work force, shutter more factories in North America and reduce its lineup of brands to just four, from eight, according to executives knowledgeable about its contents. The remaining core brands will be Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC and Buick.

But G.M.’s plan to shrink its way to profitability will not mean much without an agreement with the U.A.W.

On Monday, G.M. pressed union leaders in a meeting in Detroit for a deal on financing what was the centerpiece of the 2007 U.A.W. contract — a perpetual, G.M.-financed trust to cover health care costs of hundreds of thousands of retired hourly workers and their surviving spouses.

Both sides were hopeful that either an agreement, or at least significant progress, might be achieved by the time G.M. submitted its plan, according to three people familiar with the substance of the negotiations.

Talks are also continuing between the U.A.W. and Ford Motor and Chrysler. But the focus of negotiations has been with G.M., which has to address how a company that lost more than $20 billion last year can afford $5 billion a year in medical bills.

In its overall plan, G.M. needs to show President Obama’s new cabinet-level task force that it can substantially reduce costs and make a convincing case about its long-term viability by a March 31 deadline.

The company has already extended buyout offers to its entire United States unionized work force to reduce their ranks by another 20,000 jobs. It has also announced a 14 percent reduction in salaried workers around the world, leaving many of its white-collar workers in Detroit with limited prospects.

The plan will also probably include revisions in executive compensation and targets for cutting dealers and brands like Saturn and Pontiac.

Details of the plan have been closely guarded. G.M.’s board met Monday to review its contents, which will not be completed possibly until Tuesday, according to one G.M. official who asked not to be identified because of confidentiality agreements.

Chrysler was also said to be in the final stages of completing its plan on Monday, which will include further cuts in its manufacturing operations in the United States and more details on its strategy to rebuild its product lineup with a network of foreign alliances.

The plan was still under discussion late Monday with officials at Cerberus Capital Management, owner of an 80 percent stake, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

The White House press secretary said Monday that the Obama administration was “anxious” to see the plans, but shared no timetable on when the president’s task force would comment.

“We’re anxious to take a look at the plans, understanding that it is extremely important to have a strong and viable auto industry,” the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters aboard Air Force One. “Obviously that is going to require some restructuring to ensure its viability.”

On Monday, the president designated the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers, to oversee the task force on the auto industry.

The move surprised executives at G.M. and Chrysler, who were expecting the appointment of a “car czar” who would play an active part in negotiations between G.M. and Chrysler and their unions and lenders.

The task force is not likely to complete any review of the plans for at least a week or 10 days, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The president expects negotiations between G.M. and the U.A.W. and others to continue without pause for the plan’s submission, the official said.

Talks between G.M. and its bondholders have cooled while the automaker considers the framework of an agreement offered by the bondholders to reduce G.M.’s debt to $9 billion, from $28 billion.

The U.A.W. talks, however, have been constant since Saturday, when Ron Gettelfinger, the union’s president, at one point cut off discussions with G.M. — only to drive across town to take up the topic of retiree health care with Ford.

Ford has not received government loans, so it is significant that the U.A.W. appears to believe it must address retiree health care at all three Detroit auto companies simultaneously.

G.M. has the most at stake with the U.A.W. Its future obligations for retiree health care are estimated at $47 billion, and by next year it is required by its contract to contribute more than $10 billion to the trust set up in 2007.

The company, which nearly ran out of money before receiving the first $9.4 billion of its $13.4 billion in late December, is pressing the U.A.W. to accept stock for as much as 50 percent of its next contribution to the trust, according to two people knowledgeable about the discussions.

Mr. Gettelfinger, for his part, is trying to protect one of the jewels of the U.A.W. contract, which is essentially health care for life for anyone who worked on the assembly line and their surviving spouses. G.M. has already canceled health care for more than 100,000 of its salaried retirees.

“The U.A.W. at this point understands that it can very well turn into the villain of this whole thing by insisting that its workers receive health care benefits that few workers do,” said Gary N. Chaison, a labor expert at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

U.A.W. members are bracing for bad news, and worrying that their health care plan will be sacrificed to keep G.M. from going bankrupt.

“Where does it all stop?” said Mike Green, president of U.A.W. Local No. 652, which represents workers in Lansing, Mich. “It would be devastating. Our typical person works between 30 and 40 years. They did their part. Why should they have it taken away with the sweep of a pen?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/bu...17auto.html?hp

so you see that capital remains locked into the logic of "flexible accumulation" across the board and so without an coherent plan on the part of the state, the main victims in the restructuring process that's being driven by the implosion of neo-liberalism will be working people.

so the discourse is changing by increments, but the logic is still the same old same old.
this is what pretending that capital creates wealth through its movement rather than through linkages to production get you.
this is what conservative economic ideology still means in practice.

Rekna · 02-17-2009, 09:05 PM

US Taxpayer money should go back to American's pockets. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Hell every country has different barriers. Much of Europe currently bans US beef because we use hormones. I don't see you guys complaining about that.

roachboy · 02-18-2009, 04:47 AM

well, that requires a plan. that's what i'm saying. at the moment, the "restructuring plan"
from gm entails the loss of 47,000 jobs and closeing 5 production facilities in north american--mostly in the united states if i understand this correctly...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/bu...o.html?_r=1&hp

a plan geared around retaining jobs in the states from the state would operate quite differently than would a plan geared around financial considerations framed by neoliberal thinking--it would be directed toward underwriting the maintenance of us-based production facilities and r&d that would grow newer types of production that would be based in the states. not having a plan means that whatever gm--in this case--proposes becomes a baseline for negociations by default and the logic of that plan the frame of those negociations.

the plan requires in general a clear set of priorities.
this in turn requires that the state be conceptualized as an instrument that can be used/directed in a variety of ways as a function of the objectives...
neoliberal thinking has no way of understanding the state in any of these terms.
this is one reason why it is important that the administration break with that thinking harder and faster than it is doing--and while i understand the political motivation behind trying at least to operate in a bi-partisan manner, in terms of shaping the outcomes of the crisis, it makes no sense to do so because to do so means that the administration has to work through neoliberalism.
and that ideology is fundamental to all the problems, and a barrier to all the solutions.

guyy · 02-18-2009, 12:22 PM

Yeah, that plan is fucking nuts. If they're cutting the jobs, what is the point of a bailout?

I thought this was interesting:

GOP US Rep sez Obama too concerned with GOP

The GOP in the house can be ignored. As for the senate, Obama could very well play hardball. Do we need to build bridges in Kentucky. Why do we have military bases in Alabama when they could be Michigan or Maine or New York?

If you look at the state level, you see the same illogic in motion: governors and legislatures bravely cutting where it hurts to move their budgets closer to the balancing point. Absolutely insane. A balanced budget does what exactly? Apparently, it ,agically make all that is wrong right.

02-03-2009, 04:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	WTF - thanks for the help now we're closing the doors Have fears over this being the start of a trade isolationist policy EU attacks 'Buy American' clause Buy American is meant to ensure that only US goods are used in public works The EU has increased its pressure on the US to reconsider the "Buy American" clause in the $800bn (£567bn) economic recovery package now before Congress. The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill. A European Commission spokesman said it was the "worst possible signal" the Obama administration could send out. The EU will launch a complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) if the clause remains, the spokesman said. The EU and Canadian ambassadors to Washington have already warned that the clause could promote protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves. The rescue plan has already been approved by the US House of Representatives and is under discussion in the Senate this week. Mixed trade signals "There isn't a great deal of scope for doing much more but if America went ahead and did this we would have to take it up with the World Trade Organisation," the European Commission trade spokesman, Peter Power, told the BBC's Chris Mason in Brussels. British Conservative Members of the European Parliament warned of the dangers of "a new economic iron curtain" being drawn across Europe. We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis John Bruton EU ambassador to Washington Obama diary: First 100 days Dire warnings about protectionism The clause "sends a terrible protectionist signal to the rest of the world, and particularly the EU," said Syed Kamall, the Conservative international trade spokesman in the European Parliament. The White House has said it is reviewing the Buy American part of the stimulus bill, although Vice President Joe Biden said last week that it was legitimate to have some portion of it in the final measure. Barack Obama's signals as a presidential candidate on the campaign trail last year that he could rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement were seen as a political gesture to win round the sceptical white working class vote, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington. Perhaps that has become more important with the economic crisis, but it leaves one wondering where the Obama administration really stands on free trade, our correspondent adds. 'Retaliatory risk' EU Ambassador to Washington John Bruton said that, if passed, the measure could erode global leadership on free trade. "We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis." President Barack Obama Barack Obama says he expects a "difficult few days" Canada's ambassador to Washington warned Senate leaders that if Buy American was in the final legislation, it would set a negative precedent with global repercussions. "The United States will lose the moral authority to pressure others not to introduce protectionist policies," Michael Wilson wrote in a letter to the senators. Canada was hoping to be exempted from any Buy American measures, said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day. "These protectionist measures, in a time of recession, only make things worse," he told broadcaster CBC. "It can only trigger retaliatory action and we don't want to go there." HAVE YOUR SAY At times like this of course a domestic government should encourage the consumption of home produced goods There is also opposition from some senior US Republicans who say the measure could start trade wars. Mr Obama has urged the US Congress not to delay his stimulus plan over modest differences. The Democrat leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, has said he hopes the stimulus can be approved by the end of the week. It is unlikely that the package will be able to pass the Senate without Republican support. Meanwhile, Mr Obama is expected to name Republican Senator Judd Gregg as commerce secretary. Mr Obama will hope that Mr Gregg's nomination can help secure approval for the stimulus package, our Washington correspondent says. Mr Gregg would be the third Republican in Mr Obama's cabinet. The president's first choice for the post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, withdrew following questions about his links to big business. I appreciate it is an economic recovery package- but still very concerned !! __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

02-04-2009, 07:46 AM	#7 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	Pan, Next time summarize your post in: We grew some balls, and we're tired of playing world police so we'll let somebody else take over. Oh yeah, and go fuck yourself. Sorry, but your whole post sort of reeks of juvenile tantrum I think you might find the real world is somewhat more intricately linked than you would like it. __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

02-04-2009, 08:00 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm a bit confused by this tempest in a teapot as well. i remember watching the dismantling of the american steel and iron industries across the 1980s. one of the central symbolic moments was the transition from us steel to us-x, the transition from steel manufacturer to holding company. this process unfolded in plain sight--among the side phenomena it produced was the emergence of ceo's who specialized in riding out implosions and/or bankruptcies and deriving profit--and often quite alot of it--from the process. i don't know where people were at that point in terms of getting all huffy about the transformations of industrial geography and it's implications for quaint notions like "national sovereignty"....that's all done now effectively. all done. nothing to complain about really as we all sat around and watched it happen---maybe because we weren't being told that there were Problems that attended this process many of us didn't see that there were any--only now are folk waking up from their neoliberal slumbers and trying to figure out what the fuck happened. there are alot of reasons for the transformation of steel production. but i don't have time to make a primer at the moment---maybe the article tislyoni posted above will help in this respect. but think continuous casting in the longer durée, and the transnationalization of stock ownership in the medium durée, and the delusion of "free trade" in the shorter one. i was going to post data about the international steel & iron trades over the past decade but thought that the format i found was maybe a bit opaque. it seems to me that this "buy american" gesture is largely meaningless, so i'm not sure what folk are getting all bent about. the united states imports vastly more steel than it produces, and vastly more than it exports. it's not obvious what kinds of ownership extends through steel industry style supply chains at this point either. what is obvious is that "buy american" means outstripping capacity to produce within the territorial limits of the united states. the only way that meme could function would be for it to be linked to an industrial sector policy aimed at re-growing a domestically oriented steel production infrastructure through one or another adaptation of miti or some such. i think such a move would be a good idea in the longer run, but it isn't present at the moment, so it means nothing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2009, 05:44 PM	#11 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	Pan, you seem to have gone completely off the deep end. Sorry, but I don't recognize the guy posting in your name anymore. I don't know if I'm the only one who sees it, but it makes responding to you almost entirely pointless. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

02-04-2009, 06:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	You really think that the American steel industry is locked out of China by tariffs? headslap There are problems around the world with regard to tariffs and trade barriers, sure. The US has the casting vote in the WTO, World Bank and IMF. In effect, the agenda of those institutions are set in the white house. When the US is touting that it will rip up its own regulations, just to suit noisy idiots with vision as far as their eyelashes, then the rest of the world has a perfect right to kick up a stink. You might want to look at the case against the US in the area of sugar, particularly with regard to Jamaica. In return for IMF loans after they left the British Empire, the IMF demanded they lower import tariffs on sugar. Cheap, subsidised sugar from the US flooded their market and decimated the internal and external market for Jamaica's number one crop. Jamaica still has nothing in the way of internal industry or agriculture to speak of. The USA was even campaigning to have their protected banana market in the UK ripped to shreds... Heavy industry was crucified in the UK post-WW2, with the USA (and others) cheering the process along. Protectionist policies (and other things) in the developed nations turned what should have been a 2-4 year problem during the 30's into a decade-or-more-long crisis that was only solved by World War. Enjoy those balls while you've got them. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

02-04-2009, 08:17 AM	#9 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Obama said in the Charlie Gibson interview that he wants any provisions that go against WTO provisions to be removed from the final bill. Oh, and to the guy throwing the tantrum: the US is still the biggest player in the WTO, it is still significantly more protectionist than most 3rd world countries, and the rest of the world has been a net lender of huge proportions to the US.

02-08-2009, 09:52 PM	#14 (permalink)
streak_56 who ever said streaking was a bad thing? Location: Calgary	I thought protectionist caused the "great depression" to get worse? Pan, I completely understand where you're coming from. When I first heard this bill, I thought it made sense to me, I got that whatever projects were covered by this bill would only use US materials. Good deal for the US right? Wrong! Canada trades most with the US than any other country, we probably would still import to the US but at high tariffed prices. This isn't a problem that the US should go in alone, the US needs other countries that are in the same situation, that have needs to that are mutually beneficial to both parties. Just closing your borders to anything but american products is ludicrous. Other countries are suffering just as bad as the US, the world needs to come together and the WTO is just as important as it ever was.

02-09-2009, 06:55 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	like mister lif once said, and in the tone that he said it: welcome to the world, pan. "made in the united states" is meaningless. it does not matter what you or anyone else would prefer to see done with tax money--if the manufacturing capacity does not exist, there's noplace to buy from. this is what globalizing capitalism has meant. the neoliberal cheerleading enabled folk who were not looking to pretend to themselves that none of this was happening, it seems. but it's been a long process, the fragmentation of production, particularly in heavy industries, and the exporting of the component elements of manufacturing to places with cheap labor, available technologies and repressive union laws. in general.... what does "made in america" mean? that the majority of stock is held by american residents? stock trades transnationally, and so you cannot tell at any given point what ownership pattern obtains at the level of stock. so you have to go firm by firm, based on annual report information (if that geography of ownership is understood as important in that context--capital is capital and these reports are about charting flows for shareholders and not about providing maps of shareholding itself back to the readers of the reports...) that the corporate headquarters is located in the united states? what does that mean? that the dominant corporate language is english, that the physical headquarters is somewhere in the states, that it's corporate culture is likely to embody all the negative features of american corporate culture (and such positive features as there are)...and maybe it provides some jobs for the executive cadre, it's support staff and groundskeepers)... buy american? what are you talking about? you can't tell from looking at labels where commodities are produced because of the rigging of country of origin definitions across the 1980s such that the "country of origin" does not correspond to nation-state boundaries and refers to a space in which the largest percentage of value added takes place---so if an item requires various steps of assembly and that assembly happens in a series of "free-trade zones" located in many different nation-state spaces, the country of origin will say "united states". what does that refer to? the legal status allotted to free trade zone spaces, not geography. this is the world that the free-marketeers engineered, pan. it was class warfare from the beginning, and it's outcomes are only now becoming apparent to folk who did not want to look at this aspect of reality over the past 35 years. but if you have looked, this is in no way surprising. so i fully expect to see that language erased from the compromise package. o yeah--your position about the wto indicates that you don't know the first thing about it. up to this point, the americans have acted as if the wto was a direct extension of it's foreign policy, with the result that rulings against american corporations have been ignored while those against other countries are enforced if it suits american interests at the time. the world is just like this now. wake up. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-09-2009, 08:00 AM	#17 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	Free trade, pfft. A fall off in trade is a symptom, not a cause. That's as true now as it was in the 1930s. A crisis of capitalism occurs when the most basic capitalist transactions do not take place. Capitalist relations are not reproducing themselves, or they do so only at a level which cannot maintain the current level of development. Widget makers do not have the money to make widgets. Widget buyers do not have the money to buy them. Lenders do not lend money. The bottleneck is in the cash nexus, and not the regulation of trade. As for protectionism, the nation is an inadequate unit of analysis. Do American capitalists benefit from "free trade"? That is self-evident. Does it screw American workers? Of course!

02-17-2009, 09:05 PM	#19 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	US Taxpayer money should go back to American's pockets. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Hell every country has different barriers. Much of Europe currently bans US beef because we use hormones. I don't see you guys complaining about that.

02-18-2009, 04:47 AM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, that requires a plan. that's what i'm saying. at the moment, the "restructuring plan" from gm entails the loss of 47,000 jobs and closeing 5 production facilities in north american--mostly in the united states if i understand this correctly... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/bu...o.html?_r=1&hp a plan geared around retaining jobs in the states from the state would operate quite differently than would a plan geared around financial considerations framed by neoliberal thinking--it would be directed toward underwriting the maintenance of us-based production facilities and r&d that would grow newer types of production that would be based in the states. not having a plan means that whatever gm--in this case--proposes becomes a baseline for negociations by default and the logic of that plan the frame of those negociations. the plan requires in general a clear set of priorities. this in turn requires that the state be conceptualized as an instrument that can be used/directed in a variety of ways as a function of the objectives... neoliberal thinking has no way of understanding the state in any of these terms. this is one reason why it is important that the administration break with that thinking harder and faster than it is doing--and while i understand the political motivation behind trying at least to operate in a bi-partisan manner, in terms of shaping the outcomes of the crisis, it makes no sense to do so because to do so means that the administration has to work through neoliberalism. and that ideology is fundamental to all the problems, and a barrier to all the solutions. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-18-2009, 12:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	Yeah, that plan is fucking nuts. If they're cutting the jobs, what is the point of a bailout? I thought this was interesting: GOP US Rep sez Obama too concerned with GOP The GOP in the house can be ignored. As for the senate, Obama could very well play hardball. Do we need to build bridges in Kentucky. Why do we have military bases in Alabama when they could be Michigan or Maine or New York? If you look at the state level, you see the same illogic in motion: governors and legislatures bravely cutting where it hurts to move their budgets closer to the balancing point. Absolutely insane. A balanced budget does what exactly? Apparently, it ,agically make all that is wrong right.