pageok
pageok
pageok
Tire Trade War?

This isn't good. From the FT:

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.

Borris (mail):
Good maybe now they will stop buying our debt.
9.13.2009 8:00pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
Whoo, Liberalism!
9.13.2009 8:05pm
unhyphenatedconservative (mail):
Can we trust a news outlet that misspells "tire?"
9.13.2009 8:10pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
It doesn't seem much has changed past the inevitable promising of "terrible retaliation" the Chinese were bound to issue though after the Administration's decision. This "trade war" reads more like a warning shot across the bow.
9.13.2009 8:10pm
K. Dackson (mail):
Someone explain to me how this is simply not a tax paid by consumers, the majority of whom earn less than $250K/yr.

Another promise with an expiration date. Who could have guessed?
9.13.2009 8:12pm
K. Dackson (mail):
Cato, what about the less-covered story on the import duties imposed on steel pipe from China?

So much for building new infrastructure.
9.13.2009 8:14pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
Do you have a link to that, K. Dackson? I can't even backtrack to the original story I just read as a result of the FT's strange reading policy.
9.13.2009 8:17pm
Pro Natura (mail):
Next step: repudiate the US debt. Obama: the US's Juan Peron.
9.13.2009 8:21pm
Mark N. (www):
Isn't a looming trade war with China one of those perpetual things?

2007: Possible trade war over U.S. accusations that China is manipulating its currency, and threat of retaliatory tariffs

2005: Saber-rattling bipartisan U.S. lawmakers threaten trade war

2003: Talk of trade war over the U.S. imposing tariffs on Chinese textiles and television sets

2001: Worries that U.S. tariffs on steel could spark a trade war

1997: Possible trade war over textiles

1995: Ongoing trade war sparked by copyright disputes

1992: China threatens trade war over intellectual-property demands
9.13.2009 8:25pm
canny (mail):

Can we trust a news outlet that misspells "tire?"



"Tyre" is the British spelling... I think it's safe to trust them.
——

The fact is that China needs the US too much, and we need China too much. In all honesty, the only thing that might stop war with China in the future is that they have all our debt and the manpower, and we have the weapons to destroy massive amounts of manpower.

If China and the US every become equal in terms of military technology, I fear the consequences. It's just a matter of time before we get too ticked off at each other.

So thanks alot tax and spend Liberals (I include the Bushes in that)
9.13.2009 8:47pm
K. Dackson (mail):
Cato:

Try this:


Steel pipe tariffs
9.13.2009 8:53pm
Anon21:
canny:
So thanks alot tax and spend Liberals (I include the Bushes in that)

Please, don't forbear to mention Saint Ronnie for fear of speaking ill of the dead. Although it hasn't been fashionable to say so for quite a while, defense spending is spending too!
9.13.2009 8:54pm
Perseus (mail):
"Tyre" is the British spelling

"Tyre" is the English spelling. "Tire" is the spelling of those American upstarts.
9.13.2009 9:20pm
ArthurKirkland:
Whatever happened to "give those ChiComs hell?" If these were Cuban tires . . .
9.13.2009 9:33pm
K. Dackson (mail):
Arthur:


Whatever happened to "give those ChiComs hell?" If these were Cuban tires . . .


Then we would be paying them to import them and giving the poor subsidies to purchase the ti(y)res while means-testing so that anyone making 200% of the poverty level makes up the difference.
9.13.2009 9:36pm
Paul Allen:

Good maybe now they will stop buying our debt.


Uh. What? I don't think you understand how the Chinese conduct monetary policy. They keep their labor cheap by pegging real-exchange rates. I don't want to get into the mechanics of this here--many economists, by lack of imagination, think this isn't possible, but an important element of this is their purchases of US Debt.

If they stop buying that debt or otherwise sell it down, their pegging operation will unwind, and their export industry will be crippled.
9.13.2009 9:38pm
Tim Nuccio (mail) (www):

Whoo, Liberalism!


Liberalism? What's liberal about trade protectionism? Mercantilism, maybe. But liberalism? Hell no!
9.13.2009 10:14pm
canny:

"Tyre" is the English spelling. "Tire" is the spelling of those American upstarts.



I guess you don't count Canada, who spells it tire, but of course, Australia spells it the Bristiash-English way... Who knows which country each word belongs to :D
9.13.2009 10:22pm
laynefredricks:
Firstly, let's welcome more "Yes, I Can" meddling, although I'm told that that phrase was first used by the inimitable Sammy Davis, Jr.

Secondly, note that the administration spared the Korean tire makers, notably the one that shamelessly targets sex workers of color: Kumho.
9.14.2009 12:44am
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):

Liberalism? What's liberal about trade protectionism? Mercantilism, maybe. But liberalism? Hell no!

Capitalized the "l" for a reason.
9.14.2009 9:22am
ShelbyC:
What do the Chinese care if we tax goods from Tyre anyway?
9.14.2009 10:00am
wht (mail):
Its about time.

Free trade has always sounded great on paper, but in practice very few countries actually do it. For the most part the U.S. is the outlier, opens its markets while the rest of the world closes theirs and protects their internal manufacturing base.

Good first step, next we need a VAT - just like every other country on this planet that has an industrial base worth talking about.
9.14.2009 10:08am
ShelbyC:

Free trade has always sounded great on paper, but in practice very few countries actually do it. For the most part the U.S. is the outlier, opens its markets while the rest of the world closes theirs and protects their internal manufacturing base.


Not too shabby results either, eh? Don't forget, free trade is a good thing for the side that's doing it even if they're the only side that's doing it.
9.14.2009 10:29am
Allan Walstad (mail):

Someone explain to me how this is simply not a tax paid by consumers, the majority of whom earn less than $250K/yr.

Not possible. That's what it is. It's also a typical political calculation involving concentrated benefits (tire makers and workers) and diffuse costs (the rest of us, most of whom won't remember this story past next week). And more proof, if anyone needed it, that Obama is just another pol.

WHT: Oh, never mind.
9.14.2009 10:31am
q:

Free trade has always sounded great on paper, but in practice very few countries actually do it. For the most part the U.S. is the outlier, opens its markets while the rest of the world closes theirs and protects their internal manufacturing base.

So much for progressives and their egalitarianism when they cheer for protecting the industries of the richest nation on earth at the expense of much poorer citizens of other nations. So much for a world that goes beyond arbitrary boundaries.
9.14.2009 11:02am
Fub:
Mark N. wrote at 9.13.2009 8:25pm:
Isn't a looming trade war with China one of those perpetual things?
Prognostications of looming wars with China go back far earlier than 1992.

See, for example, Jack London's The Unparalleled Invasion, from around 1914.

London prognosticated Japan's invasion of China, but diverged considerably from actual subsequent events. The primary battle between the USA and China begins in earnest around 1976, with a major germ warfare attack by ballistic missiles (an interesting prognostication itself), and ends in 1987.
9.14.2009 7:44pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.