WTO and Bush

March 26, 2003 7:16 PM

The World Trade Organization ruled today that the steel tariffs imposed by President Bush last year were illegal.Today's ruling, which was not a surprise, was the second major loss for the United States at the W.T.O. in the last year. The trade panel awarded Europe the right to impose $4 billion worth of trade sanctions against the United States for giving tax breaks to American exporters through foreign sales corporations. Well, at least we are winnig the war...
posted by bureaustyle (22 comments total)

Yet another sign that Americans are out of step with the rest of the world...and who they hell is this we you speak of? Personally I'm proudly NOT American and yet consider myself part of the Metafilter community.

At least some of the rest of us are still protesting the war<
posted by mary8nne at 7:46 PM on March 26, 2003

...ABM, ICC, UN, NATO, WTO... and you will know us by the trail of dead.
posted by kliuless at 7:48 PM on March 26, 2003

Money talks. This will be ignored.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:00 PM on March 26, 2003

i agree with mary8nne. mefi != america
posted by Satapher at 8:08 PM on March 26, 2003

No, this is important. The WTO works in a way the UN often doesn't because it has a coersive element: it can attempt to alter behavoir by applying harsh penalties, in this case financial.
posted by pjgulliver at 8:16 PM on March 26, 2003

Excellent - if everyone really wanted to hurt Bush, they'd give up on things like blocking traffic and start generating bad publicity and court cases over these cynical vote-grabbing handouts. It'd be wonderful if this came up every time Bush made some claim about commitment to free trade...
posted by adamsc at 8:18 PM on March 26, 2003

Yet another sign that Americans are out of step with the rest of the world

How does this make the US out of step when it is the tired a true practice of European countries (as well other countries) to assist their home-grown companies with many forms mercantilism including generous government subsidies and sometime whole-government ownership? The above statement is simply not true (anyone who has taken an econ 101 or Modern European History class can tell you that), in fact this is an example of the US simply copying the rest of the world. The tariffs were a result of power policy and nothing more. Besides, there was an adjudication of rights on the merit and a remedy was instituted and fair is fair, end of the story.

Money talks. This will be ignored.

I guess the NY Time (and others) is ignoring this story. Besides who other than industry insiders, stock brokers and those that work for/own the steel companies gives a rat's ass? It will be ignored (if at all) perhaps because this story has little or impact anyone outside of select group.
posted by Bag Man at 8:22 PM on March 26, 2003

The trade panel awarded Europe the right to impose $4 billion worth of trade sanctions against the United States for giving tax breaks to American exporters through foreign sales corporations.

Money talks. This will be ignored.

Maybe. $4billion isn't quite chump change, though, even in the very deep sums of national production/trade.

And what's more, I seem to recall that the EU can be very, very clever about how they apply sanctions. For example, when Bush threw up steel tariffs a while back, not only did the EU complain to the WTO, they also pursued their own tariffs and subsidies -- taylor designed to affect industry in Bush's swing states.

The U.S. has the biggest economy and arsenal in the world, but not necessarily the best handle on politics. The Europeans have been playing inter-state politics for hundreds of years before we even got started.

(note: me/we != Mefi != US, but sometimes, since I'm an american, I will say me/we meaning US. It is too bad English doesn't have a set of first person plurals that can handily make such disinctions. From now on, I will post in Latin or Basque.)
posted by namespan at 8:22 PM on March 26, 2003

Unions talk.

Do you think the administration really wanted those steel tariffs? They were a concession to the protectionist labor interests in the first place.
posted by pjdoland at 8:36 PM on March 26, 2003

Do you think the administration really wanted those steel tariffs? They were a concession to the protectionist labor interests in the first place.

I can't imagine a Republican administration doing something solely because labor wanted it. Labor is a Democratic constituency, not Republican. Republicans get points bashing labor unions.

Steel unions may have wanted it, but the steel industry must have wanted it it too, which isn't very surprising. When both an industry and its union agree, watch out, everyone else is going to get screwed. This time, by higher steel prices.

FWIW, most conservatives and libertarians didn't like steel tariffs to begin with. Or the pork-laden Farm Bill. This administration has been disappointing with respect to free trade and free markets.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:39 PM on March 26, 2003

note: me/we != Mefi != US, but sometimes, since I'm an american, I will say me/we meaning US. It is too bad English doesn't have a set of first person plurals that can handily make such disinctions. From now on, I will post in Latin or Basque

Or, you could just say "We Americans".
posted by Jairus at 10:22 PM on March 26, 2003

Haven't you guys heard? International law is an outdated Cold War construct.
posted by jjg at 11:34 PM on March 26, 2003

I can't imagine a Republican administration doing something solely because labor wanted it. Labor is a Democratic constituency, not Republican. Republicans get points bashing labor union

That used to be true but the stereotype isn't true any more - the Democrats do best in predominantly white-collar areas and the Republicans are carrying a lot more blue-collar areas than you might think. The steel tariff exists solely because Bush's handlers thought it would help boost his support in blue-collar areas.

On an unrelated note, anyone who thinks this is somehow the US being out of touch with the rest of the world might want to do a little research first. The EU is at best equal and more likely ahead of US on total tariffs and industry subsidies and there are policies like the EU-wide GMO ban which are rather dubious from a WTO perspective.

The problem is that it was starting to look like trade was becoming freer, which is a good thing for the first world economies and vital for everyone else. Instead, they're caving to the protectionists and antiglobos and setting us up for another few rounds of trade wars, higher prices and slower economic growth.
posted by adamsc at 12:47 AM on March 27, 2003

I'm with pjdoland on this one. I'm a Bush supporter but never agreed with his push for this particular tariff. I too thought he did this to support unions. I think it's time our US companies modernize and compete with some of the top steel mills in the world. I remember reading about this topic a while back, but can't remember the details. If I recall, it was countries like Norway that were making big advances in the steel arena. Maybe someone can confirm/correct this?
posted by stormy at 2:30 AM on March 27, 2003

Bagman: How does this make the US out of step when it is the tired a true practice of European countries (as well other countries) to assist their home-grown companies with many forms mercantilism including generous government subsidies and sometime whole-government ownership?

It makes the US out of step with Australian producers who got shafted when they did nothing but supply the US market with feedstock while getting dollar-zero in subsidies.

This aint just about the EU and the US.

March 6, 2002 - Fury at US 30 per cent steel tariff - Sydney Morning Herald
posted by bright cold day at 3:19 AM on March 27, 2003

Apparently the EU tariffs will be targeting republican states.

Also, the EU has lost more jobs than the US in absolute terms in the last four years, though less as a fraction of the numbers that were working.

Apparently, the EU was none too keen to institute retaliatory tariffs reasoning that this does no-one any good but felt forced into for fear of further action by the US.
The upshot of course is that more jobs will probably go begging in both the US and the EU than would be the case without the tariffs, and we all get to pay more for products.
posted by biffa at 3:32 AM on March 27, 2003

The Times reported that the $4b ruling against the US was for "giving tax breaks to American exporters through foreign sales corporations." So that means this tariff was not a direct price that foreign companies had to pay, but rather a US tax the US companies did not have to pay.
     If you like to look at things in a certain way, because the US companies have paid fewer taxes, the US taxpayers have provided the subsidy. Now, will the US taxpayers also be asked to pay the $4b fine? All so that some crony capitalist friends of the administration can consolidate the industry and suck a bunch of $ out of the consolidation transactions and get some 'big' campaign donations. Yay
posted by engelr at 4:47 AM on March 27, 2003

Um, if this is just a case of copying Europe, why doesn't the US just subsidise the steel industries or give them tax breaks rather than taxing foreign imports?

Or have I got this wrong?
posted by thedude256 at 5:34 AM on March 27, 2003

There was an editorial by the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago blasting Bush and this particular economic policy, which they called his worst to date. They quoted a study which showed that more jobs were lost in the US due to the steel tariffs than are employed by the steel industry itself. The timing of the editorial was due to the fact that the Bush administration was supposed to review that particular policy, I believe in March, and they Wall Street Journal wanted him to reverse it immediately. I suppose that's all been thrown on the back burner so they can concentrate on fighting their war.
posted by Eekacat at 6:31 AM on March 27, 2003

I for one welcome our new American overlords.

[yay, I get to corrupt a cliche! ]

Seriously, it worries me just how many things the American government is tossing out the window in a 'we know best' kind of a way.

It's okay though... as long as Bush is in power God will make sure everything goes according to plan. God has his plan! The good will be rewarded.

[ I've lost control of my sarcasm chip! help! ]
posted by twine42 at 6:36 AM on March 27, 2003

It makes the US out of step with Australian producers who got shafted when they did nothing but supply the US market with feedstock while getting dollar-zero in subsidies.

Well Australian is not the "rest of the world." Perhaps the U.S. is out of the Austalian, but so what? I could also say the Austrialian is out of step witht he U.S., but so what? That's why there is world trade court.
posted by Bag Man at 4:09 PM on March 27, 2003

Perhaps the U.S. is out of the Austalian

I mean, Perhaps the U.S. is out of step with Australia
posted by Bag Man at 4:13 PM on March 27, 2003