Obama improving America's image around the world...

[angrydude]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f67c6fe6-a024-11de-b9ef-00144feabdc0.html\

US tyre duties spark clash
By Geoff Dyer in Shanghai and Tom Braithwaite in Washington

Published: September 13 2009 06:53 | Last updated: September 13 2009 19:23

A full-blown trade row erupted on Sunday night between the US and China after Beijing accused Washington of “rampant protectionism” for imposing heavy duties on imported Chinese tyres and threatened action against imports of US poultry and vehicles.

Trade relations between two of the world’s biggest economies deteriorated after Barack Obama, US president, signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff.

In his first big test on world trade since taking office in January, Mr Obama sided with America’s trade unions, which have complained that a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers.

Chen Deming, China’s minister of commerce, condemned the decision, saying that it “sends the wrong signal to the world” at a time when Washington and Beijing should be co-operating to deal with the worst economic and financial crisis in decades.

“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the United States government made at the [April] G20 financial summit.”

China said it would now investigate imports of US poultry and vehicles, responding to complaints from domestic companies.

The US warned Beijing against taking retaliatory action. “Retaliation would be inappropriate, as the United States acted entirely within the bounds of trade laws and within the safeguard provision that China itself agreed to upon accession to the World Trade Organisation,” said an official from the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The official said that enforcing trade agreements and laws was “critical” to maintaining free markets. Another official said the US had “negotiated to the end with the Chinese to come up with something we could all agree to”.

US officials said they were scrutinizing the export of poultry and vehicles, but said any action in retaliation by China could result in a complaint by the US to the WTO.

The dispute comes less than a fortnight before Mr Obama is due to host world leaders at a summit of G20 nations in Pittsburgh and ahead of his planned visit to China in November.

The decision to impose extra tyre tariffs followed a petition by the United Steelworkers union, which represents workers at many US tyre factories. Official figures show an increase in imports from 14.6m in 2004 to 46m in 2008.

Eswar Prasad, professor of trade economics at Cornell University, warned that the disagreement could escalate.

“These protectionist measures, some of which amount to domestic political posturing rather than substantive restraints on trade, could easily ratchet up into a full-blown trade war and inflict serious economic damage on both countries,” he said.

[ChumpDumper]

It's amazing how much board Republicans are sucking communist Chinese cock these days.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f67c6fe6-a024-11de-b9ef-00144feabdc0.html\

US tyre duties spark clash
By Geoff Dyer in Shanghai and Tom Braithwaite in Washington

Published: September 13 2009 06:53 | Last updated: September 13 2009 19:23

A full-blown trade row erupted on Sunday night between the US and China after Beijing accused Washington of “rampant protectionism” for imposing heavy duties on imported Chinese tyres and threatened action against imports of US poultry and vehicles.

Trade relations between two of the world’s biggest economies deteriorated after Barack Obama, US president, signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff.

In his first big test on world trade since taking office in January, Mr Obama sided with America’s trade unions, which have complained that a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers.

Chen Deming, China’s minister of commerce, condemned the decision, saying that it “sends the wrong signal to the world” at a time when Washington and Beijing should be co-operating to deal with the worst economic and financial crisis in decades.

“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the United States government made at the [April] G20 financial summit.”

China said it would now investigate imports of US poultry and vehicles, responding to complaints from domestic companies.

The US warned Beijing against taking retaliatory action. “Retaliation would be inappropriate, as the United States acted entirely within the bounds of trade laws and within the safeguard provision that China itself agreed to upon accession to the World Trade Organisation,” said an official from the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The official said that enforcing trade agreements and laws was “critical” to maintaining free markets. Another official said the US had “negotiated to the end with the Chinese to come up with something we could all agree to”.

US officials said they were scrutinizing the export of poultry and vehicles, but said any action in retaliation by China could result in a complaint by the US to the WTO.

The dispute comes less than a fortnight before Mr Obama is due to host world leaders at a summit of G20 nations in Pittsburgh and ahead of his planned visit to China in November.

The decision to impose extra tyre tariffs followed a petition by the United Steelworkers union, which represents workers at many US tyre factories. Official figures show an increase in imports from 14.6m in 2004 to 46m in 2008.

Eswar Prasad, professor of trade economics at Cornell University, warned that the disagreement could escalate.

“These protectionist measures, some of which amount to domestic political posturing rather than substantive restraints on trade, could easily ratchet up into a full-blown trade war and inflict serious economic damage on both countries,” he said.


why do you hate america?

[angrydude]

lol @ this being good for america

[jack sommerset]

Good for Obama. If China doesn't like it, fuck them.

[iggypop123]

at least Europe doesnt hate us anymore

[ChumpDumper]

Go, communist China!

[SouthernFried]

article really sucks..as most things that pass for journalism these days do.

Why are we putting on tarriffs?

Just because China is selling a lot of tires? Not good enough.

Is the chinese govt subsidizing tire production and "dumping" tires into the US? That would be good reasoning for a tariff. Is it because China is engaging in labor practices that subsidize tire production (i.e., using prisoners or slave labor to build tires at lower cost?) That could be valid reasoning as well.

Why are we doing this?

I'm all for protecting American business against foreign countries attacking that business as govt doctrine. Business is war, and if a country declares war on another countries business, the country under attack has every right to protect itself.

If it's just one business simply outcompeting another business in the true marketplace, then I have no problem with it. If it's just the trade unions complaining their losing jobs, and that's the sole purpose behind it...then yeah, China has a legitimate beef.

Reporting on this issue has been seriously lacking any substance. How can people decide whether there's a serious problem here, without knowing anything substantive about the issue. Are the reporters too dumb, or lazy, to find out?

[ChumpDumper]

article really sucks..as most things that pass for journalism these days do.

Why are we putting on tarriffs?

Just because China is selling a lot of tires? Not good enough.

Is the chinese govt subsidizing tire production and "dumping" tires into the US? That would be good reasoning for a tariff. Is it because China is engaging in labor practices that subsidize tire production (i.e., using prisoners or slave labor to build tires at lower cost?) That could be valid reasoning as well.

Why are we doing this?

I'm all for protecting American business against foreign countries attacking that business as govt doctrine. Business is war, and if a country declares war on another countries business, the country under attack has every right to protect itself.

If it's just one business simply outcompeting another business in the true marketplace, then I have no problem with it. If it's just the trade unions complaining their losing jobs, and that's the sole purpose behind it...then yeah, China has a legitimate beef.

Reporting on this issue has been seriously lacking any substance. How can people decide whether there's a serious problem here, without knowing anything substantive about the issue. Are the reporters too dumb, or lazy, to find out?The reason is in red.

There are several outlets with decent stories on it.

[Winehole23]

Are you lazy to find out, SF? I'd be willing to bet the substance you seek is no more than 5 clicks away.

[Winehole23]

Oh, and FT obviously sucks.

[Winehole23]

Kudos to you angrydude, for using a legit trade dispute with Communist China as a club to beat the US president with.

[Winehole23]

It shows just how deranged your hatred of Obama has made you -- you'll even take the side of Red China against him.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you lazy to find out, SF? I'd be willing to bet the substance you seek is no more than 5 clicks away.Three, tops.

[Winehole23]

The whole idea that a command economy supported by a communist state is an equal and honorable partner in a system of *free trade* is a bit challenged, mentally.

Unless the labor and the capital are free, calling the Chinese free traders is a joke.

[SouthernFried]

sigh...

I was commenting on this story, and the job this "journalist" was doing. Have you done better work than he has?

If you know Obama's motivations...Post your link to a substantive discussion of the reasoning behind Obama's move and we can discuss it.

[Winehole23]

sigh...

I was commenting on this story, and the job this "journalist" was doing. Have you done better work than he has?Still haven't done your homework, have you?

It shows.


If you know Obama's motivations...Post your link to a substantive discussion of the reasoning behind Obama's move and we can discuss it.Very simple. The Chinese are dumping cheap tires on the US market in an effort to put us out of the tire business.

The Obama Administration, working within the relevant WTO rules regarding anti-competitive dumping, are seeking to protect the domestic tire industry.

What part of this do you have a problem with, Southern Fried?

[Winehole23]

Maybe you think we ought to let China win?

[ChumpDumper]

Post your link to a substantive discussion of the reasoning behind Obama's move and we can discuss it.Damn, do you want us to write your posts for you too?

We should replace you with a Chinese poster. Better work ethic.

[SouthernFried]

Damn, do you want us to write your posts for you too?

We should replace you with a Chinese poster. Better work ethic.

Ok...well, that contributed to the substantive discussion on Obama's motives behind these tarriffs.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok...well, that contributed to the substantive discussion on Obama's motives behind these tarriffs.Look, you proved you are 1) ignorant and 2) unwilling to do anything yourself to address your ignorance.

You are incapable of a substantive discussion.

[SouthernFried]

Still haven't done your homework, have you?

It shows.

Very simple. The Chinese are dumping cheap tires on the US market in an effort to put us out of the tire business.

The Obama Administration, working within the relevant WTO rules regarding anti-competitive dumping, are seeking to protect the domestic tire industry.

What part of this do you have a problem with, Southern Fried?

I have no problem with any of this.

Do you have a relevant link that states Obama is using the WTO's anti-competitive dumping provisions as its basis for US Tariffs? And what did they cite as evidence of dumping to enable tariffs?

[Winehole23]

It's reported in the OP.

[Winehole23]

Do you have some link that shows this not to be the case?

[Winehole23]

So far, you got nothing.

[SouthernFried]

I have seen nothing that states the US is imposing tariffs because of specific actions the Chinese govt has done to dump products in the US.

Have you?

[ChumpDumper]

You haven't even looked.

[SouthernFried]

You haven't even looked.

Actually, I have. Still found no substantive reasoning explained beyond what's in the original article I mentioned.

Have you found anything more informative?

[ChumpDumper]

Look harder. The website has three initials.

[SouthernFried]

I give.

If you know why Obama is doing this...well, that's good. The "journalist" doesn't seem to. And if he knows, he ain't talking. Neither are you it seems...so, it's a big secret I guess. Nobody knows, and if they do...they ain't talking.

We're left with...Obama is imposing Tariffs because Labor asked him to protect their jobs.

That's not a good enough reason to impose tariffs.

[ChumpDumper]

I give.Jeez -- what are you, French?

[SouthernFried]

Jeez -- what are you, French?

I am 1/3 french.

[clambake]

I am 1/3 french.

:lol ok....lets see the math on your family tree. you only have 2/3 left.

[SouthernFried]

So, nobody can come up with the Obama administrations cited evidence of Chinese violations of WTO dumping provisions?

[ChumpDumper]

So, nobody can come up with the Obama administrations cited evidence of Chinese violations of WTO dumping provisions?:lol You sue can't.

I have to question your knowledge of fractions as well.

[jman3000]

Just heard a talk radio guy trying to pass off a bogus story that the White House was going to fly the PRC flag over the White House on September 22nd in honor of the 60th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution as fact.

I'd like to see if this fake story gets any traction.

I'd reckon that conservatives will say he was going to do it, but due to their raised voices he decided not to.

[SouthernFried]

:lol You sue can't.


I'm su(r)e you can't either...since it doesn't exist

[ChumpDumper]

I'm su(r)e you can't either...since it doesn't existAlready have. I gave you a hint.

[SouthernFried]

Already have. I gave you a hint.

It's obvious it doesn't exist. You cannot answer the simple question

"what's Obama's administrations cited evidence of Chinese violations of WTO dumping provisions?"

You cannot answer this..because nobody has bothered to state any.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously.

Three initials.

Very popular site.

[Winehole23]

We're left with...Obama is imposing Tariffs because Labor asked him to protect their jobs.

That's not a good enough reason to impose tariffs.Even this you cribbed from the very same FT article you say is incompetent.

You still haven't done your homework yet, have you? :lol