EU attacks 'Buy American' clause, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 06:19 PM by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by detachedindividual

And for your info, I am not simply hating on America. That's incredibly narrow minded and unjust.
I would be just as angry at my own government if they failed to go by the regulations THEY'D AGREED with the EU because this one or that one didn't benefit them.

Please don't resort to petty insults.


Yeah? Then stop saying "you" when you refer to how "we" want to just get out of "our" agreements. "I" didnt make that agreement, and when it was made I was either too young to vote or not even born.

And I doubt our current president was voting then either, as he isnt that old himself.

If YOU as an individual want YOUR government to modify or get out of the agreement YOU have MY blessing. I dont confuse YOU with your government. So dont confuse all Americans with ours. And dont assume that "we" are all the beneficiaries of a system that was never set up to benefit the common people of any country. I have never been for globalization.

And stop blaming all this crap on us and crack a history book or two.

en.wikipedia.org...

Global integration continued through the expansion of European trade in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires colonized the Americas, followed eventually by France and England. Globalization has had a tremendous impact on cultures, particularly indigenous cultures, around the world. In the 15th century, Portugal's Company of Guinea was one of the first chartered commercial companies established by Europeans in other continent during the Age of Discovery, whose task was to deal with the spices and to fix the prices of the goods.

In the 17th century, globalization became a business phenomenon when the British East India Company (founded in 1600), which is often described as the first multinational corporation, was established, as well as the Dutch East India Company (founded in 1602) and the Portuguese East India Company (founded in 1628). Because of the high risks involved with international trade, the British East India Company became the first company in the world to share risk and enable joint ownership of companies through the issuance of shares of stock: an important driver for globalization.

Globalization was achieved by the British Empire (the largest empire in history) due to its sheer size and power. British ideals and culture were imposed on other nations during this period.


America didnt invent this. Our government is not the only participant. So stop pointing your finger at "us" and deal with your own government. Thats what really needs to happen is the finger pointing at the citizens has to stop and people need to look to what the real problem is, not only here in the US, but everywhere. Our leaders are greedy self serving twits that would sell us down the river for a shiny nickle. And they keep us at each other so that no one ever notices that they are all in on it together when it suits them to be.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 06:21 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by Frankidealist35


I don't think they do. Everyone is just nervous and scared for their own survival. The politicians are just chest thumping and posturing to save their own behinds.



reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 06:23 PM by Blaine91555
Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


You're missing my point on this entirely.

I am not saying that America shouldn't get out of this agreement. I AM SAYING THAT WE ALL SHOULD!
It should all be rewritten. It is outdated and no longer sustainable in the current crisis.



You got it. It was legally void the second any Party to it stopped benefiting from it. The politicians are full of hot air and since they are attorneys for the most part they know this.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 06:41 PM by stumason
Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by jam321


Complain away-- but they're being irrational.

Europe says we mean nothing to them. But they want our goods.

What does that tell you about their intent?

They only rely on us as much so far as they can use us for all we're worth.

I say we continue this policy if they keep acting like a bunch of hypocrites...


When has the EU said it doesn't need America? Or where are we being hypocritical? Have you fallen through some sort of dimensional doorway from another Universe where Europe is engaged in protectionism and doesn't heavily rely on US trade?


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 06:42 PM by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Blaine91555

Having said that, protectionism is a stupid course that no one in their right mind would support. We saw what its fruits are during the Great Depression. Is the current Administration stupid enough to repeat that mistake. Of course they are Look at the Presidential Appointees they are trying to sneak by Congress.



The Great Depression was NOT caused by protectionism. It was not a strictly American phenomenon. I dont know of anyone in any school of economic thought that attributes the Depression to countries working toward the end of ensuring their own people had jobs and toward keeping the countries wealth circulating within the country.

You could more rationally argue that globalization contributed to that economic crisis as well as this one.

Here is a well reasoned explanation;

en.wikipedia.org...

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.


Translation into plain English,

A few ticks were living on the back of a dog. They invited in a few friends. Instead of bleeding the dog at a rate in which the dogs body could replenish itself, the greedy ticks sucked the dog dry and the dog died. The end.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 07:43 PM by Frankidealist35
reply to post by stumason


Really?

You're dependent on us?

I forget that sometimes when I see these anti-US European posters...


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 07:54 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I never said that. The recovery was slowed down by it.

The 1913 Underwood-Simmons Tariff was an experiment with lowered tariffs. In 1921, Congress ended that experiment with the Emergency Tariff Act. In 1922, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act raised tariffs above 1913 levels. It also authorized the president to adjust tariffs by 50% to balance foreign and domestic production costs, a move to help America's farmers.

In 1928, Hoover ran on a platform of higher tariffs designed to protect farmers from European competition. Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930; Hoover signed the bill although economists protested. It is unlikely that tariffs alone caused the Great Depression, but they fostered global protectionism; world trade declined by 66% from 1929 to 1934.
Source


I'm far from alone in this thought. Smoot-Hawley should have taught us a lesson. Apparently our current crop of Leaders can't read.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 07:57 PM by stumason
reply to post by Frankidealist35


A good portion of our trade goes your way, so yes. As much as you are dependent on EU trade, which is why Obama has backed down. He didn't want to trigger a trade war. We'd tarriff the crap out of US trade...


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 08:03 PM by marg6043
reply to post by stumason


Actually that is what made the trade so unfavorable for the US, already we are at disadvantage with the VAT, perhaps US should start penalizing any imports and give our exporters a taste of their own medicine.



reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 08:23 PM by stumason
reply to post by marg6043


Pardon? I don't understand what your alluring too. Are you claiming that only US goods and services are subject to VAT and you're disadvantaged by that?


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 08:31 PM by Frankidealist35
reply to post by stumason


That makes sense.

Don't you think we could negotiate the trade agreement to make it so that it's more fair in this time of crisis to all nations thou?


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 08:36 PM by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by UmbraSumus


There is no patriotism within a Corporation.

Shareholders.
Profit margins. etc etc.


I could not agree more. And it wasnt only American corporations either. What we are seeing around the world is what you get when you let companies dictate policy to countries. Companies who dont give a damn about either the country or the people who live in it.


Originally posted by UmbraSumus
Even if America produced all their own cars, T.V`s , P.C`s etc. etc. ...... you wouldn`t be able to afford them if they were manufactured in the U.S.A. ........ your standard of living is way too high, to pay your wages , the cost of the product would be prohibitively high.


Again, you are right. We would not be able to afford to consume the way we do if we all bought American. Nor would the British be able to consume the way they do. Or any "first world" country. I have been to the UK, your stores are no less full of useless crap produced at the expense of the third world than ours are.

Which begs the question; Would the world be better off if first world citizens hadnt become such voracious and mindless consumers? Obviously including America in that but not excluding the rest of the first world. I think the answer to that is "yes." We didnt need to blow through the worlds resources at the rate we have been. We are not better off as human beings for having masses of disposable junk. We are not better off as human beings working the endless hours we do to buy that junk.

Who is really benefiting from all of this? Not the common people in the first world. Sure we have more crap with which to amuse ourselves, but are we really all that happy? The rates at which we pop pills, drink, overeat, and overshop tells me "no" we arent that happy.

The common people in the third world are most definitely NOT benefiting from globalization. They are standing helplessly by while corporations and the governments they buy prop up "democratic governments" in these countries hand selected to allow these corporations to rape the land of its natural resources and force the people into wage slavery.

And the real orchestrators of all this KNOW they are not helping "the people."

www.trilateral.org...

The point is that there is a big backlash against globalization. We see it in the financial world. We certainly see it in the trading world as well. It’s much more fundamental than pure economics. We know that globalization does increase income and social disparities within countries. We know that globalization does leave some countries and certainly some groups of people behind.


Its not about "the people" its about them.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 08:48 PM by marg6043
reply to post by stumason


Let me show you something.

The VAT system is one of the contributors of America worsening trade deficit.

The VAT was initially started as a post-World War II trade agreement to help rebuild Europe. Today Europe is thriving- the European Union had a greater GDP than the United States in 2007. But instead of VAT disappearing, it is now used by 149 countries worldwide.

VAT destroys America’s ability to produce and compete in the world market by promoting an un-level playing-field for global trade. The VAT tax acts a de facto subsidy for exports entering the American market, and a tariff against imported American goods.

Foreign governments collected $122.4 billion from U.S. producers in 2006; foreign producers collected $218.2 billion in rebates during that same year.

In 2005, the tax was applied to 94% of U.S. imports and exports. In EU countries alone in 2001, the Average VAT rate applied was 19.4%, coupled with a tariff average of 4.4% levies a total tax of 23.8% on American goods and services.


www.economyincrisis.org...

Let see how other nations get away from protectionism.


The French have a very long history of protecting companies it dubs “national champions” from takeovers by foreign competitors as well as providing extensive subsidies to farmers.

The British have been nationalizing their banking industry and forcing multinational banks to lend less internationally to focus on British businesses and citizens.

Indonesia has recently put up trade barriers to protect its domestic production of electronics, garments, toys and footwear.

France, Britain and Sweden have long histories of subsidizing their respective domestic auto making industries.

Both Korea and Japan are well known for putting up barriers to make it nearly impossible to sell American made cars inside their countries. In fact, in 2006 the U.S. sold just 5,000 cars in South Korea while the South Korean automaker Hyundai sold 600,000 in the U.S.

China has been known to purposely undervalue its currency in order to keep the price of its manufactured products cheaper than that of its competitors.

www.economyincrisis.org...

And now many of these nations dare to chastise America for wanting to stimulate its economy?

Give me a brake here my friend, It seems that the WTO wants America to actually collapse.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 09:02 PM by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Blaine91555


I'm far from alone in this thought. Smoot-Hawley should have taught us a lesson. Apparently our current crop of Leaders can't read.


You are right. You arent alone in the thought.

www.trilateral.org...

As Joe Nye pointed out earlier, we had a similar period of globalization a hundred years ago. The standard understanding, of course, is that this earlier world of globalization—which by many measures was more extensive than today—came crashing down with the advent of World War I followed by the Great Depression. But careful students of that history have informed us that the contemporary backlash a century ago was already significantly rolling back globalization well before the onset of war and depression. Protectionist trade measures—including in the United States but other countries as well—resisted the increasing intrusion of foreign competition. Immigration, which was a huge factor in globalization during that period, began to be resisted, including by earlier generations of immigrants, and began to shut down that element of globalization even before the more traumatic outbreaks in the early part of the 20th century. New challengers to the system—Germany, Japan, and to some extent the United States—were accommodated to some degree, but not wholly, and that too raised instabilities and doubts that spilled over into the political as well as the economic side of the system. In truth, we had a backlash in the early 20th century that contributed to the end of that period of globalization and may have helped bring on the subsequent cataclysms that ended it for half a century.


But this moron also said; (in 2000)

This situation leads to the shocking fact that, in the United States, polls show that our labor force has greater levels of anxiety today with the strong economy than at the depth of the recession in 1991.


Seems his characterization of the economy as "strong" turned out not to be accurate and the general feeling among the labor force was much more indicative of what was to come.

Maybe, and I would like you to consider this seriously, since the "protectionism CAUSED the Great Depression" theory is far, oh so far from being universally accepted. Maybe just maybe the mood of the people this economist is speaking of is an indication that, en masse, the people of a country sense the coming collapse before the economists that cause them do? And that the protectionism that preceded the great depression wasnt the CAUSE of it, but an early reaction by the masses and at the time more responsive governments to something that was coming anyway and was caused by globalization itself?

There is no possible way this current global collapse was caused by protectionism. Trade has never been freer. What is the same? Is it not that, as Marriner S. Eccles says in his memoirs;

en.wikipedia.org...

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spend by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.


I think if you look at the theory presented above, you will see a striking similarity to exactly the circumstances that preceded this current collapse.

Considering this, you would have to question whether or not "protectionism" prolonged or caused the Great Depression or in fact was the mechanism by which countries pulled themselves out of the mess that globalization itself causes.

www.trilateral.org...

We know that globalization does increase income and social disparities within countries. We know that globalization does leave some countries and certainly some groups of people behind.


Isnt that a description of Marriner S. Eccles take on what caused the Great Depression? And is that not precisely what we saw preceding this one?

[edit on 4-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^