US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

Morality Games · Sep 12, 2009

It is inherently impossible to make a move (or not make a move) which isn't bound to make a large number of people angry at some point or time in this day and age. Things are too integrated.

All manufacturing jobs pay $29.50/hr doing good hard American work at the plant, while all service jobs are $5.75/hr mopping up at McDonalds.

Didn't you get the memo?

... true, but McDonalds is (1) a low-end example and (2) low prices on manufactured goods compensate somewhat for the reduced incomes. The consumer has to pay for that $30.00; you can buy a cast-iron spatula and frying pan from China for $40-50 -- an American counter-part would cost $100-200. There is nothing intrisinically wrong with a service-based economy; it comes with its own set of resident advantages and disadvantages.

Coronado · Sep 12, 2009

Have the steel tariffs imposed by Bush been forgotten already?

The WSJ weighs in:

Obama’s Trade Test
The President faces his steel tariff moment.

[...]

As Mr. Obama faces his moment of truth on tires, he ought to look at a report issued last week by Rutgers economist Thomas J. Prusa examining how the ITC’s proposed tariffs would ripple through the U.S. economy. Mr. Prusa calculates that each job “saved” by the ITC’s tariffs would come at the cost of at least 12 jobs lost, and possibly more than 25. Most tire-related employment in America consists of the people who distribute and install tires, not people who produce them. By depressing tire sales, a tariff would jeopardize those jobs.

And depress sales the tariff almost certainly would, at least in the first 12 to 18 months. U.S. tire factories have shifted over the years to higher-grade tire manufacturing. Chinese imports come at the lower end of the price spectrum. Mr. Prusa notes that these American producers have little interest in, or capacity for, making substitutes for the Chinese imports. A tariff-induced price rise—amounting to between $300 million and $600 million economy-wide—would mainly hurt low-income American drivers. The tariffs would likely encourage those drivers to delay buying new tires as long as possible.

[...]

JW Frogen · Sep 12, 2009

All the Chinese have to do to get this tarrif lifted is stop making tires from the foreskins of Tibeitian monks.

Alex Libman · Sep 12, 2009

RightinNYC said:
All manufacturing jobs pay $29.50/hr doing good hard American work at the plant, while all service jobs are $5.75/hr mopping up at McDonalds.

Some jobs aren't worth $5.75/hr, and manufacturing jobs most definitely aren't worth $29.50/hr - it's all result of violence and theft by the government demagogues.

And the service sector is anything that's not agriculture, extraction of raw materials (ex. mining), fishing, and manufacturing - which includes the most valuable types of human activity.

JW Frogen said:
All the Chinese have to do to get this tarrif lifted is stop making tires from the foreskins of Tibeitian monks.

Circumcision is not prevalent in East Asia (except South Korea).

And the Tibet issue is not so black-n-white. I do support all secession movements (local government is slightly less evil than distant one, and inter-governmental competition is a sure path to greater liberty), but you'd be replacing pragmatic state capitalism of China with an economically-backward theocracy... Something to think about...

Coronado · Sep 13, 2009

Alex Libman said:
Circumcision is not prevalent in East Asia (except South Korea).

And the Tibet issue is not so black-n-white. I do support all secession movements (local government is slightly less evil than distant one, and inter-governmental competition is a sure path to greater liberty), but you'd be replacing pragmatic state capitalism of China with an economically-backward theocracy... Something to think about...

Never mind Frogen. He's drunk.

JW Frogen · Sep 13, 2009

It is not cultural; the Chinese always put profit before culture, it is simply Tibetian monk foreskins are a cheap raw material. Other than Tibetians themselves it is the leading export.

And the search for cheap raw materials is a Chinese specialty.

JW Frogen · Sep 13, 2009

Mind you, the US picking economic fights with a Chinese that pretty much holds the US mortgage if you will, and even if you won't (that is what happens when one culture makes things and the other only consumes things) , is probably a case of the US circumcising the wrong prick.

JW Frogen · Sep 13, 2009

Alex Libman said:
And the Tibet issue is not so black-n-white. I do support all secession movements (local government is slightly less evil than distant one, and inter-governmental competition is a sure path to greater liberty), but you'd be replacing pragmatic state capitalism of China with an economically-backward theocracy... Something to think about...

Unlike the Chinese I don't presume to replace anything in Tibet, I would leave that up to them, just as I would leave China up to the Chinese people rather than the parasitic Chinese Post Communist Party.

Say Parasitic Chinese Post Communist Party five times while eathing freid rice, I dare ya.

Voidwar · Sep 13, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
They have to meet EPA standards before they are allowed to be sold in the first place.

Importation will be restricted on that alone, so they'll do that or they won't sell them here.
If they somehow do get them in the country to be sold when the purchaser brings the information to the state for processing of title and registration they will most likely be denied which will cause them to not be able to sell those.

So all of that adds up to :

They ain't gonna be sold here no way no how.

So they are not a consideration in the dispute regarding tires.

obvious Child · Sep 13, 2009

Alex Libman said:
You say "dumping" as if it's a bad thing.

Because it is? Dumping is inherently anti-competitive as deliberately distorts prices to remove competition only to see the dumper raise prices artificially above what the market price is. Dumping can be used as an economic weapon of war, particularly if the government is subsidizing the losses to deliberately damage the economy of a specific country.

Alex Libman · Sep 13, 2009

obvious Child said:
Because it is? Dumping is inherently anti-competitive as deliberately distorts prices to remove competition only to see the dumper raise prices artificially above what the market price is. Dumping can be used as an economic weapon of war, particularly if the government is subsidizing the losses to deliberately damage the economy of a specific country.

No, government interventionism is inherently anti-competitive. Selling a product at a loss is a dangerous business maneuver that can backfire. It also benefits the consumers. This isn't the 19th century - when the "dumper" runs out of money, the competitive environment can be restored rather quickly.

Scorpion89 · Sep 13, 2009

phattonez said:
Definitely. People are forgetting who gets screwed if we start this kind of tariff. It's not just the Chinese, but Americans as well.

Far from it, First all of the Company's I listed moved there Plants and Jobs outside of the USA to get away from Labor and EPA Rules fine then there should be some sort of backlash on this. Oh and wher do you think all of those stuff that are now being made that used to be made in the USA are going to yep right back into the USA. So to stop this you make it simple 100% Tarrit's on these items and tell these companies you want the product to come back in the USA then you re-open the Plants you closed and rehire and train new folks.

But lets not stop with Textile and the Companies I listed lets add ship Building tot his list along with Steel Industry. Tell all of these US Based Cargo and Oil Tankers that you must have Xamount of US Build Ships in your Fleet.

The reason America is in the problem we are in is Congress sat back on there hands over the past 35+ Years and let stuff be outsourced.

phattonez · Sep 13, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
The reason America is in the problem we are in is Congress sat back on there hands over the past 35+ Years and let stuff be outsourced.

I think that your sentence requires a little more nuance. We didn't let jobs get outsourced, we encouraged jobs to be outsourced.

Scorpion89 · Sep 13, 2009

phattonez said:
I think that your sentence requires a little more nuance. We didn't let jobs get outsourced, we encouraged jobs to be outsourced.

No we didn't in New England the Textile Industry closed and moved out because of High Labor Cost and EPA . John Deer closed it's three Tractor Plants in the USA due to the fact they didn't want to re-do the Union Contracts. Mars Candy moved it's sugar Refinning Plant to Costa Rica because of Labor and EPA Rules.

phattonez · Sep 13, 2009

Corporate tax? Payroll tax? EPA? Lawsuits because of the Civil Rights Act? ADA?

We make this country a very unfriendly business environment.

jamesrage · Sep 13, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
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 can support Obama on this. Hopefully this is just the one of many steps to protect American jobs and perhaps cause those that did leave the US to return. As a patriotic American I oppose the outsourcing of jobs and another form of globalization, we need to start making our own things and jobs should be the one thing the US does not export. Free trade is not fair trade if it cost Americans their jobs. And the only thing letting other countries make things us does is leave us at their mercy.

This nonsense about oh poor people will not be able to buy cheap new tires or cheap new cars is hogwash. I grew up poor,my friends grew up poor. Poor people do not buy new cars when they can buy a used car nor would they go and buy a cheap new tire when they can buy a used decent name brand tire for 25-30 dollars. When poor people buy food they get the Always Save/Best Choice brands instead of the Del Monte, Bush's, Vande Camps , or the Rodeo brand/Bar+S brand hotdogs instead of the Oscar Myer or the BallPark brands. INstead of Rainbow bread then buy cheap generic grocery store brand bread. INstead of NIKE or ReeBocks shoes its pro-wings from the payless shoe store or if they do get NIKE or Reebock its either on lay-away or used from the thrift store. When poor people buy TVs they get them on lay-away or they buy them used from a pawn shop or thrift store,unless they got a tax refund.

Scorpion89 · Sep 13, 2009

phattonez said:
Corporate tax? Payroll tax? EPA? Lawsuits because of the Civil Rights Act? ADA?

We make this country a very unfriendly business environment.

All of the above in New England States there was high Fuel Cost and State Payroll tax's. When the Clean Air Act was enacted it hurt the Texile Industry the most because it wouldn't allow the Companies to upgrade over a Xamount of time the EPA demanded that Texile Plants must come into complance by Xamount of time meanwhile other Industries had time to come in compliance(Auto,Aerospace,Steel,Farming), so what happen these plant closed and moved to Central America,India,China Far East Countries that had low payroll and no Enviromental laws and sent the stuff back to America.

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.

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 13, 2009

jamesrage said:
I can support Obama on this. Hopefully this is just the one of many steps to protect American jobs and perhaps cause those that did leave the US to return. As a patriotic American I oppose the outsourcing of jobs and another form of globalization, we need to start making our own things and jobs should be the one thing the US does not export. Free trade is not fair trade if it cost Americans their jobs. And the only thing letting other countries make things us does is leave us at their mercy.

This nonsense about oh poor people will not be able to buy cheap new tires or cheap new cars is hogwash. I grew up poor,my friends grew up poor. Poor people do not buy new cars when they can buy a used car nor would they go and buy a cheap new tire when they can buy a used decent name brand tire for 25-30 dollars. When poor people buy food they get the Always Save/Best Choice brands instead of the Del Monte, Bush's, Vande Camps , or the Rodeo brand/Bar+S brand hotdogs instead of the Oscar Myer or the BallPark brands. INstead of Rainbow bread then buy cheap generic grocery store brand bread. INstead of NIKE or ReeBocks shoes its pro-wings from the payless shoe store or if they do get NIKE or Reebock its either on lay-away or used from the thrift store. When poor people buy TVs they get them on lay-away or they buy them used from a pawn shop or thrift store,unless they got a tax refund.

There are times to criticize policies because they really don't help low income people and there are times like this when it would do nothing to bar these guys from entering the market with their products.

China can make affordable cars that don't cost a lot of money and at the moment the under $10k new car area in somewhat bare.

Lower quality tires are not really made in the U.S. anymore but some people need them. Policies like this don't help anyone.

jamesrage · Sep 13, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
There are times to criticize policies because they really don't help low income people and there are times like this when it would do nothing to bar these guys from entering the market with their products.

I am not saying China, India or some other country should have their products banned in the US. All I am saying is that if their products are allowed in the US it should not be at the expense of American jobs or drive away most manufacturing out of the US.

China can make affordable cars that don't cost a lot of money and at the moment the under $10k new car area in somewhat bare.

Unless a poor person has extremely good credit he is not even going to buy a car at $8,000. Because he or she knows where they can get a good used truck or car for under a $2,000.

Lower quality tires are not really made in the U.S. anymore but some people need them. Policies like this don't help anyone.

Used tire shops. A semi-used or used Michelin Tire for 25-35 dollars is probably much better than a cheap tire from China any day of the week.

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 13, 2009

jamesrage said:
I am not saying China, India or some other country should have their products banned in the US. All I am saying is that if their products are allowed in the US it should not be at the expense of American jobs or drive away most manufacturing out of the US.

It depends, if the government is propping up the U.S. business with taxpayer funds and can't compete with Chinese goods on the grounds of quality then let China have them.

Manufacturing in the U.S. isn't in decline, it's changing phases.
I'd much rather us manufacture new high tech goods than generic goods.
We shouldn't be keeping the old stuff just because.

jamesrage said:
Unless a poor person has extremely good credit he is not even going to buy a car at $8,000. Because he or she knows where they can get a good used truck or car for under a $2,000.

It depends on what you consider poor.

If your using government standards to rate who is and is not poor, then we can safely assume that they can purchase a new car using loans.
The thing is though, that they should be financing lesser valued cars in order to free up their money for other needs.

jamesrage said:
Used tire shops. A semi-used or used Michelin Tire for 25-35 dollars is probably much better than a cheap tire from China any day of the week.

You never know though.

China may be able to create an affordable and moderate quality tire to compete with used tire businesses.

We should be in the business of keeping competition instead of protectionism of jobs when they are obsolete.

jamesrage · Sep 13, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
It depends, if the government is propping up the U.S. business with taxpayer funds and can't compete with Chinese goods on the grounds of quality then let China have them.

No company should be propped up with American tax dollars.

Manufacturing in the U.S. isn't in decline, it's changing phases.
I'd much rather us manufacture new high tech goods than generic goods.
We shouldn't be keeping the old stuff just because.

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

It depends on what you consider poor.

If your using government standards to rate who is and is not poor, then we can safely assume that they can purchase a new car using loans.
The thing is though, that they should be financing lesser valued cars in order to free up their money for other needs.

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

You never know though.

China may be able to create an affordable and moderate quality tire to compete with used tire businesses.

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

We should be in the business of keeping competition instead of protectionism of jobs when they are obsolete.

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

obvious Child · Sep 13, 2009

Alex Libman said:
No, government interventionism is inherently anti-competitive.

Blanket statements are generally incorrect. Government intervention to ensure a level playing field is competitive. Basically, your argument is that if the government does nothing and lets a company use exceptionally uncompetitive practiced, including illegal ones to eliminate the capitalist framework of an economy into something very anti-competitive, the government's inaction is competitive. That makes no sense. You need some government regulation to ensure that parties within the capitalist market will not change the framework into something like favoring a few parties or a single party. Furthermore, you need regulation to ensure fair and honest disclosure. Both are government interventions that are pro-competitiveness.

Selling a product at a loss is a dangerous business maneuver that can backfire.

But it is also anti-competitive. Reducing prices to eliminate competition and then artificially rising them above prereduction prices is not capitalism.

It also benefits the consumers. This isn't the 19th century - when the "dumper" runs out of money, the competitive environment can be restored rather quickly.

Explain to me how you do that when the government of a country is subsidizing the loss.

danarhea · Sep 13, 2009

What really pisses me off is that China regularly manipulates its currency and its markets, and even uses child and slave labor to gain unfair economic advantage in world markets. And they dare to whine that the US is being unfair?

If China wants a trade war, then bring it on. We would win it in the first few minutes by employing a very effective weapon - Defaulting on our debt.

obvious Child · Sep 13, 2009

danarhea said:
What really pisses me off is that China regularly manipulates its currency and its markets

Technically every country does this. There really is no way not to do this unless you get rid of your central bank and don't make economic legislation and eliminate all tax credits and deductions based on business. Every time the fed changes rates, it is manipulating the currency and market. Every time you make a tax cut or run deficits, you're manipulating the currency and market.

Remember that the US manipulates the market, especially in defense contracting merely by how the cost/payment structure are done. Cost Plus accounting is essentially subsidizing large portions of our economy. 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.

Alex Libman · Sep 13, 2009

obvious Child said:
[...] Government intervention to ensure a level playing field is competitive. [...]

Punishing the winners and rewarding the losers is just as anti-competitive as intervening the other way around.

obvious Child said:
[...] Reducing prices to eliminate competition and then artificially rising them above prereduction prices is not capitalism.

Dumping does not eliminate competition, it postpones it - while you're losing money your competitors are allocating their money toward something else. This only makes sense in industries that use contractual obligations to ensure consumer loyalty, in which case it's a matter of consumer choice (cheaper rates now vs the ability to switch companies later).

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

obvious Child said:
Explain to me how you do that when the government of a country is subsidizing the loss.

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.

"When the opponent expand, I contract,
When he contracts, I expand,
And when there is an opportunity,
I do not hit - it hits all by itself."

- Bruce Lee

US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

Morality Games

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation

JW Frogen

Alex Libman

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation

JW Frogen

JW Frogen

JW Frogen

Voidwar

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Alex Libman

Scorpion89

phattonez

Catholic

Scorpion89

phattonez

Catholic

jamesrage

Scorpion89

Harry Guerrilla

jamesrage

Harry Guerrilla

jamesrage

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Alex Libman