• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

I suspect that the lawsuit Airbus filed over US subsidies to Boeing are likely to be proven true (as the lawsuit we filed against Airbus). We all do this.

Really so please show me where in any Bill that has been signed by any President of the United States that give's Boeing the same type of subsidies that Airbus has/is getting from France,Italy,Germany and England.

The US Govn. has never payed for any Boeing Plants to be build nor has the Federal Govn. given any Aircraft Company's any special loan's.
 
Punishing the winners and rewarding the losers is just as anti-competitive as intervening the other way around.

Explain to me how preventing market consolidation via illegal measures specifically designed to reduce competition and the competitive framework is anti-competitive.

Furthermore, explain to me how an efficient capitalist market can work without proper information disclosure.

You explicitly ignored both of those points in your truncated quote of my post suggesting that you are not interested in actual debate but soapboxing.

Dumping does not eliminate competition, it postpones it - while you're losing money your competitors are allocating their money toward something else.

Unless you destroy your competitors in the process. Which kind of is the point of dumping.

Initiating aggression (i.e. government intervention) is "not capitalism". Everything else is fair play.

I wasn't aware that fraud was "fair play" nor threats of violence as "fair play" nor was illegal actions such as kickbacks. Can you support such claims that such normally illegal actions are actually supportive of a capitalist market?

If China wants to give away money indefinitely, that's their business. It would then make more sense for the American companies to focus on things that China isn't dumping, and make profits while China continues to operate at a loss - until they decide to raise their prices and American companies can compete with them again.

I suspect you do not even understand the point of dumping after such a statement. Explain to me how American firms driven out of business by dumping will magically compete after being liquidated to pay off their debts.

You appear to support your ideology out of emotional investment and thus do not critically analyze it. Hence your overt support of fraud and illegal measures.
 
Really so please show me where in any Bill that has been signed by any President of the United States that give's Boeing the same type of subsidies that Airbus has/is getting from France,Italy,Germany and England.

The US Govn. has never payed for any Boeing Plants to be build nor has the Federal Govn. given any Aircraft Company's any special loan's.

You do realize that subsidizing does not have to be direct no? Just giving them cash isn't the only way. There's actually an incredibly easy way to do it. Boeing jacks up its defense contract bill which is subject to cost plus. That extra cost which isn't related to defense contract is then cross subsidized to the commercial products. This is somewhat difficult to prove without going through their accounting, but it's not hard to enact, especially under a cost plus system.

Furthermore, I wasn't aware that the Airbus claim was about the same type of subsidies?
 
You do realize that subsidizing does not have to be direct no? Just giving them cash isn't the only way. There's actually an incredibly easy way to do it. Boeing jacks up its defense contract bill which is subject to cost plus. That extra cost which isn't related to defense contract is then cross subsidized to the commercial products. This is somewhat difficult to prove without going through their accounting, but it's not hard to enact, especially under a cost plus system.

Furthermore, I wasn't aware that the Airbus claim was about the same type of subsidies?

Except for this one little fact the Military Division of all US Companies are subject to a GAO aduit every three months so while their is Cost Over runs build in they(Boeing) is required by Federal Law to return any money not used.

Yes the claim that Airbus is trying to use is the same that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin filed against Airbus. But it's part of a larger suit against Airbus in general.
 
Except for this one little fact the Military Division of all US Companies are subject to a GAO aduit every three months so while their is Cost Over runs build in they(Boeing) is required by Federal Law to return any money not used.

Do you know how easy it is to hide stuff like cross subsidization? It's not hard to create an artificial cost over run that appears to be valid. Especially when the contract is for complex items. And if you bury it deep enough in small enough amounts to be immaterial, GAO auditors will simply apply a materiality check and miss it entirely. No auditor goes line by line and breaks down every time into amounts that are immaterial. The only thing potentially shadier than a lawyer is an accountant.

Yes the claim that Airbus is trying to use is the same that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin filed against Airbus. But it's part of a larger suit against Airbus in general.

Do you have specifics on their claims?
 
(I'm not going to recite a full textbook on free market economics here. You should read and educate yourself.)


Furthermore, explain to me how an efficient capitalist market can work without proper information disclosure.

It can't, which is why information disclosure is very important to all stakeholders. Blind faith in government only gets in the way of this.


Unless you destroy your competitors in the process. Which kind of is the point of dumping.

Like I said, this isn't the 19th century. Even the production of physical goods is becoming ever-more flexible. The "dumper" would have to spend more time losing money than the very brief gap of time during which he'd be able to profit (and consumers will know they just need to wait a few weeks for prices to come down again).
 
GAO auditors will simply apply a materiality check and miss it entirely. No auditor goes line by line and breaks down every time into amounts that are immaterial. The only thing potentially shadier than a lawyer is an accountant.

Oh yes the GAO goes line for line when it goes threw Military Contracts I can attest to that fact. When the GAO did the aduit of the Boeing-Bell V-22 Test Program at Naval Test Pilot School at NAS Pax River they(The GAO) went thru everything we had on paper plus some of the GAO folks came out and look at some of the stuff that was billed to make sure it actually was being used on the 7 test Birds that we have NAS Pax.
 
It can't, which is why information disclosure is very important to all stakeholders. Blind faith in government only gets in the way of this.

Explain to me how you think that all government intervention is bad for the market when government intervention is one of the key ways we ensure accurate, honest and timely disclosure of information is made available to the market.

You still have not answered my second question.

Remember, you stated this:

"government interventionism is inherently anti-competitive."

Auditors are government intervention that produces accurate, honest and timely information disclosure. By your statement, you think that it is anti-competitive.

Like I said, this isn't the 19th century. Even the production of physical goods is becoming ever-more flexible.

Depends on the goods. Not everything can be quickly built nor can the labor be quickly hired, pooled and moved to the plant. Even worse, after a competition has been eliminated, if that dumper takes market share, it is increasingly hard to get that back if the products are similar in quality and if the dumper is willing to dump again to eliminate any upstarts.

The "dumper" would have to spend more time losing money than the very brief gap of time during which he'd be able to profit (and consumers will know they just need to wait a few weeks for prices to come down again).

That makes sense for a product like paper cups. How does one do that for complex manufacturing?
 
Oh yes the GAO goes line for line when it goes threw Military Contracts I can attest to that fact.

Not quite. The GAO will go line by line for material items. There is no way they will go down each item and break each item down for immaterial items. You really think they are going to go after $1,000 items on a $50 million contract?

And as the R&D, test and eval of the V-22 is at $12.7 billion, the materiality levels are probably not even $50 million. Generally, materiality levels will start around half of a percent of the total cost.
 
Last edited:
Not quite. The GAO will go line by line for material items. There is no way they will go down each item and break each item down for immaterial items. You really think they are going to go after $1,000 items on a $50 million contract?

And as the R&D, test and eval of the V-22 is at $12.7 billion, the materiality levels are probably not even $50 million. Generally, materiality levels will start around half of a percent of the total cost.

Yea your right never mind the fact that I had to sit with two GAO Guys and go over some of the items that were billed and have other stuff pulled part by Ground Crews so they can check for certain parts. Yea your right how silly of me. So what time shall I report to your office on Monday so we can introduce each other.
 
No company should be propped up with American tax dollars.

I agree but then you have to ask yourself, when the government puts up trade barriers are they using tax payer dollars to prevent those trying to enter our markets?

With that you must also accept that government will eventually play the game of picking winners and losers domestically.

Low tech manufacturing jobs are not the only ones being outsourced.High tech have outsourced under the guise of being able to compete globally. If it can be produced then it can be outsourced. I wonder if those who lost their their high tech jobs to outsourcing supported outsourcing.

All Your Computer Are Belong To Us; One more reason why Outsourcing will bit you in the a** living for the weekend

R&D the Latest Target of Silicon Valley Outsourcing - InternetNews.com

Some things are but you can't outsource everything, it's not possible.

Sometimes the saving on labor aren't made up by the transportation costs.
Automation is going to put manufacturing wage laborers out of a job anyway.

I considering poor to be about $20,000 or less if you are single and no kids, $30,000 if you have kids.

That is about in line with what the government says although I believe single is a little bit a lower.

I would rather China not be given a chance to drive any US manufacturing company away.

If they are more efficient than the manufacturer in the U.S. then why not.
There are better things we can do here.

As long as there is a demand for the products those manufacturers make then there is not such thing as a obsolete job.

Yea but the manufacturing processes can be inefficient and they could do it better somewhere else.
 
Yea your right never mind the fact that I had to sit with two GAO Guys and go over some of the items that were billed and have other stuff pulled part by Ground Crews so they can check for certain parts. Yea your right how silly of me. So what time shall I report to your office on Monday so we can introduce each other.

What was the largest amount for an item they looked at? I don't doubt that you went over that stuff or that stuff was looked at. But it does not address the materiality issue. If the parts were in aggregate sufficiently material, then they did their jobs checking for parts on a certain number of aircraft. However, I extremely doubt that anyone went over immaterial items. If they did that, the audit would take years or would require a literal army of auditors to check every single item, R&D expense and evaluation expense. Did you have 10,000 auditors? Given the size, to check the immaterial items, it would take something like that.

Imagine this. You have a million individual identical parts that are ordered. Say they cost $30. Boeing tacks on $5 to their cost and justifies it. That actual $5 is for cross subsidization. They just got $5 million in subsidies. And if your materiality levels are $50 million, you're not going to check it.
 
Last edited:
Explain to me how you think that all government intervention is bad for the market when government intervention is one of the key ways we ensure accurate, honest and timely disclosure of information is made available to the market. [...]

You've started a separate thread for this, so let's discuss it there.


Depends on the goods. Not everything can be quickly built nor can the labor be quickly hired, pooled and moved to the plant. Even worse, after a competition has been eliminated, if that dumper takes market share, it is increasingly hard to get that back if the products are similar in quality and if the dumper is willing to dump again to eliminate any upstarts.

You're still failing to understand that the dumper is loosing money, not making it, all just so that he could have a window of time during which he can raise prices and not face competition. The dumper can only guess how long he'll have to keep dumping to shake off competition, how long that window of higher prices would be, and how low the sales will drop during that window. A competitor could put out an ad saying "don't buy those overpriced products, we'll have same ones out in two weeks for half the price"!

Furthermore, the dumper's rise in prices can be anticipated by the competitors, retailers, and by regular folks watching the market. The former can prepare by keeping their production process nimble and ready to switch between multiple types of products as market conditions change. The latter can buy the under-priced products in bulk and then sell them for a middle price during that window when prices are higher, thereby making a profit themselves and further punishing the dumper. And the dumper would also be punished by consumer opinion as well.


That makes sense for a product like paper cups. How does one do that for complex manufacturing?

Like switching a modern automobile factory to producing motorcycles or tractors for a while and then switching it back? That amount of time is already pretty low, and it will continue to get ever-lower as manufacturing processes become ever-more robotized and software-driven.
 
I agree but then you have to ask yourself, when the government puts up trade barriers are they using tax payer dollars to prevent those trying to enter our markets?

No they are not,tariffs are a form of tax. Nor are they preventing anyone from entering the market by imposing tariffs that make them actually competitive with US companies.



Some things are but you can't outsource everything, it's not possible.

If it can manufactured then it can be outsourced. Even some phone technician/customer service jobs and operator jobs have been outsourced.


Sometimes the saving on labor aren't made up by the transportation costs.
Automation is going to put manufacturing wage laborers out of a job anyway.

Robots and other machines still require techs to maintain them, I would rather American techs service those machines than Chinese or Indian techs and I would rather American companies make those machines and parts that the automated factories use. Automated factories still require some human interaction(I watch discovery channels "How its made") and someone to buy equipment from.

If they are more efficient than the manufacturer in the U.S. then why not.
There are better things we can do here.


Child labor, underpaid employees, sweat shops and not having to give a **** about the environment does not really make a good poster child for efficiency. Manufacturing jobs, telephone operators,customer service jobs in the US provides decent paying jobs for Americans and ensures that no country will have the ability to cut us off from any goods.

Yea but the manufacturing processes can be inefficient and they could do it better somewhere else.

Regardless of the method used to produce goods it is completely dishonest to say that those jobs are obsolete. An obsolete job would be one that produced goods no one uses.
 
You're still failing to understand that the dumper is loosing money, not making it, all just so that he could have a window of time during which he can raise prices and not face competition.

Not at all. I know what the financials of dumping are. But you fail to recognize the point of dumping. And you are operating on a very strange notion that companies that have been liquidated after losing the war to the dumper can magically come back. That makes no sense.

The dumper can only guess how long he'll have to keep dumping to shake off competition, how long that window of higher prices would be, and how low the sales will drop during that window. A competitor could put out an ad saying "don't buy those overpriced products, we'll have same ones out in two weeks for half the price"!

Can that competitor do that when they are shut down? You have this notion that a dumper is going to stop before the competition is badly injured. Thus why I question your capacity to understand what dumping it. If dumping was really what you said it was, there wouldn't be valid WTO claims against it. Dumping it meant to damage and destroy your competitors. Why would you stop before you've done that?

Furthermore, the dumper's rise in prices can be anticipated by the competitors, retailers, and by regular folks watching the market.

Again, you assume that competitors will still be around.

That's the Achilles's heel in your argument.

Like switching a modern automobile factory to producing motorcycles or tractors for a while and then switching it back? That amount of time is already pretty low, and it will continue to get ever-lower as manufacturing processes become ever-more robotized and software-driven.

Uh, retooling for new cars is pretty time consuming. What makes you think that completely changing the factory for bikes or tractors is going to be quick? You do realize that many factories today are actually designed from the ground up for specific products no? Intel doesn't refit modules normally. It builds entirely new ones. Furthermore, even on a robotic system, you need new robots. The kind you see in car plants are designed to build CARS. Often they have specific parts for specific cars.
 
[...] Again, you assume that competitors will still be around. [...]

Successful companies tend to be diversified, so temporarily losing competitiveness in one product area won't put them under. And new ones can enter the marketplace as well.

The marketplace is very resilient, because it is powered by the most powerful force in the known universe - human greed. When there's money to be made, people tend to jump at the chance, if not one corporation than another.

A far greater danger to competition comes from things like patents, tariffs, and business regulations, all of which are unnatural constructs backed by government force.
 
Last edited:
Successful companies tend to be diversified

Possibly, but many companies generally cannot survive a steep drop in revenue from one division. Right now Boeing, who we generally consider as diversified with rockets, commercial jets and military actually derives over 70% of its net operating profit from just military. If that disappeared, Boeing would be toast. Generally the 20-80 rule is operating within most firms and diversification is hardly in the form of GE which has widely unrelated businesses. Many firms diversify within the same branch of business.

And new ones can enter the marketplace as well.

Depending on the obstacles to entry. Furthermore, once that dumper gains significant market share from the deaths of its competitors, it's hard to break through unless you have a significently superior product and lots of money to quickly expand production. It's really not as easy as you make it out to be. Countries take hard lines against dumping for a reason.

The marketplace is very resilient, because it is powered by the most powerful force in the known universe - human greed. When there's money to be made, people tend to jump at the chance, if not one corporation than another.

While that is true, start up costs for complex manufacturing are high. And if the dumper is willing to dump in the first place, they'll do it again against generally cash poor start-ups. For certain industries, you'd be correct, but for many you're not.

A far greater danger to competition comes from things like patents, tariffs, and business regulations, all of which are unnatural constructs backed by government force.

Perhaps, but patents create incentives to innovate. If no one could get IP rights, then innovation would likely decline. Tariffs generally I'd agree with you. And some business regulations are required despite your anarchist views. I don't support removal of business regulations that prevent the export of materials such as uranium, centrifuges, plastic explosives and DOD weapon.
 
I've already debunked your pro-government fear-mongering to pieces, but I understand that you can keep repeating it indefinitely. What you fail to understand is that the government system is far less resilient than the free market, with far more monopolies that are backed by blunt force, and the amount of faith that you're willing to put in it seems to be infinite.


[...] Perhaps, but patents create incentives to innovate. If no one could get IP rights, then innovation would likely decline. [...] And some business regulations are required despite your anarchist views. I don't support removal of business regulations that prevent the export of materials such as uranium, centrifuges, plastic explosives and DOD weapon.

Those issues deserve separate threads. (And I only have so much time I can spend on this forum. You could simply eliminate the middle-man and read some Rothbardian books for yourself...)
 
Last edited:
I've already debunked your pro-government fear-mongering to pieces, but I understand that you can keep repeating it indefinitely.

Like Voidwar did in defending his claim he's not pro-killing Cops?

Sure you did. :rofl

Just pretend you do and you never have to address it.

What you fail to understand is that the government system is far less resilient than the free market, with far more monopolies that are backed by blunt force, and the amount of faith that you're willing to put in it seems to be infinite.

That doesn't explain why we should just sit down and take dumping.

Those issues deserve separate threads. (And I only have so much time I can spend on this forum. You could simply eliminate the middle-man and read some Rothbardian books for yourself...)

Given how poorly you have argued your points, I'll pass.

Please educate yourself as to how a business actually works.
 
US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing - Yahoo! News







This is really bad policy considering China owns a ton of our debt and they are about to introduce some low cost econo cars to the U.S. either this year or early next.

All this crap does is penalize low income people in favor of union interests by raising costs on car and tires.

I believe your thoughts on the future effects of creating a more level playing field for US workers and manufacturing to be a little alarmist, and slightly off base.

For some years now there seems to have been some propaganda spreading within our country about how our people and companies can not produce an affordable and quality product, and that is not only wrong and inaccurate but also has fueled a growing problem where our workers are losing in every way due to competing directly with third world nation and other workers who do not enjoy nearly the quality of life that American workers did previously.

It does not seem to matter if the product is autos, textiles, machine tools, heavy equipment, or any other product type, and the point of origin (country) could be any that the labor rate and quality of life is so much lower than that enjoyed in America. It is not just China as previously stated in this thread, and it is also not just tires (though rubber products are a large problem).

What many seem to miss and especially those who cry protectionist etc is that while the exploitation and even slavery of workers in third world nations has produced reduced costs, lower prices and largely increased corporate profits (have to wonder if the threats to these profits is not why there is so much opposition to stopping the dumping of products and foreign government subsidized manufacturing and products) while completely changing the face of America from the loss of manufacturing, shutting down of entire communities, reduced wages, lost wages, and right on down the quality of life for many Americans.

Maybe because my career is deeply rooted in industrial production I have been able to witness things others may not have etc, and this includes not only countless plant shut downs and job losses, but also various different tariffs that are applied to products beyond the normal duties placed on imports.

Dumping duties as they are called have been in place for many years, and though like most things that happen in Washington are a result of lobby efforts etc the purpose is to create a level playing field where an obvious imbalance existed where/from foreign manufacturers and even countries were dumping their products at insanely low prices only to destroy the American companies and competition so that there could be a turn to profitability in the future after there was no US based competition.

Should there not be the same level playing field when US corporation have joined with these foreign interests (manufacturers and governments alike) to increase their profits? Should we sit back and just say things are OK when there are companies like GE, Dewalt, Westinghouse, ATT, and so many others of small and large size that are profiting off the backs of foreign labor while devastating domestic manufacturing and the American worker?

Though I agree with many of the concerns of conservative beliefs this is one area that I can not. Who in their right mind could ignore the changes in the landscape of our own country just to support continued increased imports and the export of the wealth of our country?

Things seem to have some potential for a healthy correction, and considering that at one point our military could not even source the products and parts needed to keep its equipment running from domestic manufacturers (US or foreign owned) including nuclear class subs the government is aware of the depth of the problem, and maybe these current changes in trade with China are an indication that some are aware and willing to address things even if on a small scale.

It would seem obvious that there is no need to close down imports completely, and I do believe even the most hardcore true protectionist would agree this would not be healthy, but it would also seem most would agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed and that stopping the destruction of domestic manufacturing by creating a level playing field for all is not such a bad idea.
 
I wanted to address the comments on low income families separately as I believe though affected by the increase in imports over the last 40 or so years it has not been from the reason or reasons addressed in the original post.

First and foremost we need to discuss the very real fact that losses in manufacturing jobs and especially the better paying ones and including the union effect and members etc have greatly and negatively impacted income levels of the American worker in general.

Not only have more Americans joined the ranks of poverty and the working poor etc. but there are also the all the other workers who used to work for companies that produced the products that the other workers used to purchase before being unemployed or even under employed.

One thing that complicates it all is that there seems to be a large difference of opinion on just what "low income" is, and so many have come to value their success or quality of life based on the accumulation of so many of the worthless third world nation imports (flat screens etc), far too few base this on opportunity or quality time with their families, or even being able to afford to have the mother of their children actually be able to avoid having to work and actually raise their children instead of some government concern.

Think that is interesting then just consider that though there was all kinds of talks of hope during the recent presidential election there has been an obvious reduction in the real hope of those trapped in poverty and on government services as there are seriously lower employment opportunities available that actually offer an improvement in income or quality of life over that already supplied by the government.

When there are not enough good paying low level jobs due to losses in manufacturing there are just not many options available to those people who are able to enjoy a higher quality of life by not working rather than giving up their current situation for minimum wage employment that may not even be available long term due to the very real potential of the company closing due to foreign imports and competition.

We can ignore the obvious all we like, but the way we chose to accept the facts does not change those facts, and those who are and have been selling us all down the river while profiting at an ever increasing level need to be corrected, and the destruction of our middle and working class stopped immediately before it brings down our entire system.
 
It doesn't work that way, champ. Throwing up a tariff is cutting your nose of to spite your face. And just how do you "go after" a company that outsorces? Do you propose to hold a gun to the CEO's head until he brings jobs back to the US?

The only thing your idea would do is punish the American consumer. It wouldn't put anyone back to work.

Not sure I follow this thinking 100%.

Lets take the tariff to a slightly different level and make it equal to the difference in the cost of labor in the two countries. That way the imported product would have to compete on quality, and not just on price that may be greatly influenced by government subsidies. This would create a level playing field, and though only used for argument etc it is interesting as well as what could be done domestically with the money collected.

Remember the current problem of a totally out of balance import/export ratio did not happen over night, and there has been so much suffering by middle and working class Americans over the last 40+ years due to the related losses in US manufacturing.

The answer or correction is going to take time to happen if it does manage to happen before America reduces the wealth of 95% of its people to a level comparable to that of the third world nations currently being exploited by the corporations profiting from their imported products.

There is no need to use guns with our CEO's, and all it would take is to remove the increased profits from exploiting third world nations low labor costs at the cost of destroying our own manufacturing sector.

Imports have caused so many problems that go so deep into our system that we are just now starting to see how poor many have become (what I believe is part of what is fueling the so called health care crisis due to medical care not being able to be imported, and the comparison of the reduction in wealth of the average American) and even with two family members working full time in many if not most families many can not maintain the same level of wealth and quality of life of previous generations.

Just think things through a little deeper and see what you find.
 
John Deer shut it' plants down because of the Union demands on Health Care and State and federal Payroll Tax's. They sent one of the Factory's to Mexico(No Union or State Taxs to worry about) the other two were moved to China and guess what all these tractors are now sent back to the USA.

John Deere has NOT shut down all of it's American plants. There are still plants in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa that I know of and I'm sure there are others.
 
So, since this would force Americans into penury, who will purchase that products they manufacture?
 
I really getting sick and tired of the Chinese inflating these issues. They need to think about patching things up with the US. The Chinese need to learn how to roll with the punches.
 
Back
Top Bottom