NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama wants to avoid 'trade war'

US President Barack Obama has said he wants to avoid economic stimulus measures that would signal protectionism or spark a trade war.

Mr Obama was responding to international criticism of a "Buy American" clause in the $800bn (£567bn) US economic recovery package.

The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill.

The EU said the clause would send "the worst possible signal".

A European Commission spokesman said the EU would launch a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the clause remained.

European and Canadian ambassadors to Washington had already warned that the clause could provoke protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves.

The rescue plan has been approved by the US House of Representatives and is under discussion in the Senate this week, which could sign it off before the weekend.

In addition to the opposition from the EU and Canada, some senior US Republicans have cautioned that the Buy American measure could start trade wars.

The White House has said it is reviewing the Buy American part of the stimulus bill, although Vice-President Joe Biden said last week that it was legitimate to have some portion of it in the final measure.

Mr Obama has urged the US Congress not to delay his stimulus plan over modest differences.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7868799.stm)

So has the new presidency dug themselves a hole with this one? I figure this may turn into one hell of a clusterfuck if this goes to the WTO (its not like we haven't beat the US before at this) or Obama backs down the bill upsetting his unions vote.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7868799.stm)

So has the new presidency dug themselves a hole with this one? I figure this may turn into one hell of a clusterfuck if this goes to the WTO (its not like we haven't beat the US before at this) or Obama backs down the bill upsetting his unions vote.

I already brought this up, and the Obama lovers here claim it's a lie, and that if he did put it in the bill, he didn't really mean it, and it isn't a sign that he has no foreign policy experience.

Whats wrong with Americans buying American?

Its not as if we're telling Europe to do it....Not that we have to anyway, lol...

That clause is almost certain to be struck out of the bill in the Senate. It was just grandstanding by some House members.

I already brought this up, and the Obama lovers here claim it's a lie, and that if he did put it in the bill, he didn't really mean it, and it isn't a sign that he has no foreign policy experience.

No one said anything of the sort.


Anyway, he flat out says "he wants to avoid economic stimulus measures that would signal protectionism or spark a trade war."

So, either he is doing a double take, or he didnt put it in the bill.

That clause is almost certain to be struck out of the bill in the Senate. It was just grandstanding by some House members.

It was in there from the beginning, from Obama.

No one said anything of the sort.


Anyway, he flat out says "he wants to avoid economic stimulus measures that would signal protectionism or spark a trade war."

So, either he is doing a double take, or he didnt put it in the bill.

He's doing the double take because once again, he got caught.

Psh, I say we need protectionism anyway...We've let too much of our Manufacturing Capability escape...

There is also probably more to this story about the US putting pressure to stop information about them torturing prisoners being released.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870896.stm
I tend to believe the judges more than David Miliband.

If the US did threaten to stop sharing intelligence it has to be one of the stupidest bits of diplomacy in quite a while.

It was in there from the beginning, from Obama.
I thought you had some shred of a clue how our system works. The President does not introduce legislation: Congressmen do. Obama did not write anything in the bill. He can publicly make proposals of what he would like Congress to put in the bill: and he has certainly done so, made an awful lot of proposals in fact, many of which are in the bill. But this is not one of the things which Obama ever proposed, or has ever taken a position in favor of.

It was in there from the beginning, from Obama.

From most other posters, Id take this at face value.


From you, however, Im going to need a source.

I thought you had some shred of a clue how our system works. The President does not introduce legislation: Congressmen do. Obama did not write anything in the bill. He can publicly make proposals of what he would like Congress to put in the bill: and he has certainly done so, made an awful lot of proposals in fact, many of which are in the bill. But this is not one of the things which Obama ever proposed, or has ever taken a position in favor of.

Dont ruin Dk's anti-Obama fantasy with your logic and facts about our government.

I thought you had some shred of a clue how our system works. The President does not introduce legislation: Congressmen do. Obama did not write anything in the bill. He can publicly make proposals of what he would like Congress to put in the bill: and he has certainly done so, made an awful lot of proposals in fact, many of which are in the bill. But this is not one of the things which Obama ever proposed, or has ever taken a position in favor of.

He certainly had quite a bit to do with crafting the bill.

And he proposed it as an offering to labor unions.

Obama looks less like a leader and more like a man reacting to events. He should have foreseen the consequences of the legislation before pushing it. Now, instead of looking like the leader of the free world, Obama looks like a man flailing in the water, looking for lifelines, without a clue as to how to govern or an understanding of trade or foreign relations. He projects weakness, uncertainty, and inexperience at a time when America can ill afford any of those three, let alone the hat trick.

I already brought this up, and the Obama lovers here claim it's a lie, and that if he did put it in the bill, he didn't really mean it, and it isn't a sign that he has no foreign policy experience.

dammit I always miss threads :mad:

Whats wrong with Americans buying American?

Its not as if we're telling Europe to do it....Not that we have to anyway, lol...

its discriminatory against every other company that operates in the world (how about we stop buying whatever it is the US sells....seashells maybe?)

That clause is almost certain to be struck out of the bill in the Senate. It was just grandstanding by some House members.

"Vice-President Joe Biden said last week that it was legitimate to have some portion of it in the final measure."

also the fact that this has gone forward (and is still going) despite the EU telling you that this won't go well again and again strikes me as slightly undiplomatic at least

Anyway, he flat out says "he wants to avoid economic stimulus measures that would signal protectionism or spark a trade war."

not doing a good job of it is he?

(how about we stop buying whatever it is the US sells....seashells maybe?)


Have at it friend...

not doing a good job of it is he?

He's not doing anything right now. The president cannot propose legistlation.

He's not doing anything right now. The president cannot propose legistlation.

So you're saying he's not pushing the stimulus package, and never has? Never sat down with Pelosi and crafted it?

It's his stimulus package, and he's been pushing it.

If he gets caught on something stupid, you'll say the Pope wrote it.

i think you should wait to sue until after the bill is passed.

So you're saying he's not pushing the stimulus package, and never has? Never sat down with Pelosi and crafted it?

It's his stimulus package, and he's been pushing it.

If he gets caught on something stupid, you'll say the Pope wrote it.

You realize that things could have been added by the house, right?

Why dont you actually show me a source that says he wants it. Because right now I have your word and Obama's. Guess who Im going to believe?

its discriminatory against every other company that operates in the world (how about we stop buying whatever it is the US sells....seashells maybe?)
No one is suggesting that the US stop buying foreign goods. The clause is simply an attempt to ensure that the money that is being spent to stimulate the US economy...stimulates the US economy.

I'm sorry. No-one is allowed to hate the United States anymore. The country is now led by a black man, so it would quite rightly be regarded as racist, same as criticizing the government of Robert Mugabe which has brought in unprecedented levels of economic success, with every citizen now a zllionaire. You know who else was a racist? Yes, Hitler. Do we have Nazis here?

Psh, I say we need protectionism anyway...We've let too much of our Manufacturing Capability escape...

Poles > Mexicans

There is also probably more to this story about the US putting pressure to stop information about them torturing prisoners being released.

good lord you mean the US is just going about randomly abducting and torturing foreign nationals with the national governments doing anything?!1?!

next you will tell me the Sun is going to rise in the morning

He certainly had quite a bit to do with crafting the bill.

Didn't I just say so? He has talked quite a bit about what he wants to see in the bill.
And he proposed it as an offering to labor unions.

HE proposed this, you say? We need to see a source on that (but we won't hold our breaths).

Guess who Im going to believe?

Its a Jackal right? IS IT A JACKAL!? JACKAL!!!...Jackal!...Give me Jackal...JACKALL!?

i think you should wait to sue until after the bill is passed.

It was protectionist talk like this that turned what would have been a recession into the Great Depression.

Surely Obama didn't intend to back a bill full force that had such an idiotic provision in it.

So, either he's fucking ignorant, and is backing a bill of which he is completely ignorant of the contents, or he's been pushing a bill whose contents he is well aware of, but is ignorant of history and foreign policy.

It was protectionist talk like this that turned what would have been a recession into the Great Depression.

Surely Obama didn't intend to back a bill full force that had such an idiotic provision in it.

So, either he's fucking ignorant, and is backing a bill of which he is completely ignorant of the contents, or he's been pushing a bill whose contents he is well aware of, but is ignorant of history and foreign policy.


Or hes backing a bill that has things he thinks the country needs, even if it means passing some things with it he doesnt like much. Its called compromise.

I know after 8 years of "my way or the highway", such a concept seems strange...

No one is suggesting that the US stop buying foreign goods. The clause is simply an attempt to ensure that the money that is being spent to stimulate the US economy...stimulates the US economy.

This too. I actually dont have much issue with the Buy American clause. I think this is just European leaders feigning outrage, which they are expected to do.

i think you should wait to sue until after the bill is passed.

we are really just putting in thinly veiled threats at this point which is what we do pretty much weekly to Russia

No one is suggesting that the US stop buying foreign goods. The clause is simply an attempt to ensure that the money that is being spent to stimulate the US economy...stimulates the US economy.

so that things like Canadian lumber come under attack again? can the US just leave those damn loggers alone for 5 minuets!

also the government is discriminating company's for buying foreign goods I mean come on now the US is supposed to be leading the free trade movement but here it is applying its own set of rules

I'm sorry. No-one is allowed to hate the United States anymore. The country is now led by a black man, so it would quite rightly be regarded as racist, same as criticizing the government of Robert Mugabe which has brought in unprecedented levels of economic success, with every citizen now a zllionaire. You know who else was a racist? Yes, Hitler. Do we have Nazis here?

well I think the clue is in the name of where the president lives >_>

I mean come on now the US is supposed to be leading the free trade movement but here it is applying its own set of rules


Well there's your problem, the majority of Americans were never in support of that Crap...

The voting populace didnt get a say in NAFTA, or any of those "free" Trade things....

The voting populace didnt get a say in NAFTA, or any of those "free" Trade things....

but that doesn't mean that you can just turn around and dick Canada about whilst you are still in NAFTA and the WTO does it?

its like if everyone decided to suddenly stop buying US grain (I think we might buy that) all the US farmers would be waving their 3 arms in the air and desperately trying to sell their cousin\wife

but that doesn't mean that you can just turn around and dick Canada about whilst you are still in NAFTA and the WTO does it?

its like if everyone decided to suddenly stop buying US grain (I think we might buy that) all the US farmers would be waving their 3 arms in the air and desperately trying to sell their cousin\wife

Hey, if you can find another source of Grain, thats all you, lol...Im not even sure you actually do buy it...

I dont see why not...Ill let you know when I care about Canada...

We should just go ahead and get out of NAFTA and the WTO while we're at it, how has it ever benefited the majority of Americans?

Obama looks less like a leader and more like a man reacting to events. He should have foreseen the consequences of the legislation before pushing it. Now, instead of looking like the leader of the free world, Obama looks like a man flailing in the water, looking for lifelines, without a clue as to how to govern or an understanding of trade or foreign relations. He projects weakness, uncertainty, and inexperience at a time when America can ill afford any of those three, let alone the hat trick.

Wait a second... didn't you use this exact line in another thread?

Then explain the protectionist idiocy he put in the bill. Obama looks less like a leader and more like a man reacting to events. He should have foreseen the consequences of the legislation before pushing it. Now, instead of looking like the leader of the free world, Obama looks like a man flailing in the water, looking for lifelines, without a clue as to how to govern or an understanding of trade or foreign relations. He projects weakness, uncertainty, and inexperience at a time when America can ill afford any of those three, let alone the hat trick.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14478380

Oops.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7868799.stm)

So has the new presidency dug themselves a hole with this one? I figure this may turn into one hell of a clusterfuck if this goes to the WTO (its not like we haven't beat the US before at this) or Obama backs down the bill upsetting his unions vote.

Sounds like a lose lose situation for him. Let us see how he digs himself out of this one. And the WTO is a joke!

Hotwife looks less like a debater and more like a man reacting to events. He should have foreseen the consequences of the source-link before pushing it. Now, instead of looking like a man with a point, Hotwife looks like a man flailing in the water, looking for lifelines, without a clue as to how to argue or an understanding of trade or foreign relations. He projects weakness, uncertainty, and inexperience at a time when right-wing trolls can ill afford any of those three, let alone the hat trick.

Hey, if you can find another source of Grain, thats all you, lol...Im not even sure you actually do buy it...

you would be amazed at the things we don't seem to be buying from the US (you have cattle now?) odds are if you dry up we can just buy the stuff off Kazakhstan\give central Europe something to do

what does the US sell :confused:

I dont see why not...Ill let you know when I care about Canada...

you won't be saying that when the maple embargo goes into full swing and millions of Americans starve from lack of pancakes

We should just go ahead and get out of NAFTA and the WTO while we're at it, how has it ever benefited the majority of Americans?

well your a consumer economy so I guess it has also you may want to pull out of these trade agreements before you break them randomly

all this talk of diplomacy and such

The economy bores me silly. Can we not discuss something else, beyond tit-for-tat Obamatry and the economy?

what does the US sell

http://www.pride2.org/NewPrideSite/Asia/Lesson3/exports.html

Mechanical stuff, cereals, and organic chemicals.

Agricultural goods account for nearly 15% of the exports of the US.

http://www.nam.org/~/media/Files/s_nam/docs/239000/238986.pdf.ashx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USexportsbycountry2004.gif

you would be amazed at the things we don't seem to be buying from the US (you have cattle now?) odds are if you dry up we can just buy the stuff off Kazakhstan\give central Europe something to do

what does the US sell :confused:



Thats exactly the point, we need to get our Manufacturing Capacity back again, things like NAFTA prevent us from doing so...


And because you can just go to Kazakhstan for it...I dont see why you would have a problem with us doing so...

And the WTO is a joke!

pfft if we didn't have such an organization we would of spiraled into a trade dispute with the US long ago

The economy bores me silly. Can we not discuss something else, beyond tit-for-tat Obamatry and the economy?

but hes taking jobs away from European workers and giving them to Americans!

but hes taking jobs away from European workers and giving them to Americans!

and this is bad for the US why?

I thought you were going to Kazakhstan for your stuff now...

but hes taking jobs away from European workers and giving them to Americans!

Heaven forfend! Quick, call the BNP!

Thats exactly the point, we need to get our Manufacturing Capacity back again, things like NAFTA prevent us from doing so...


And because you can just go to Kazakhstan for it...I dont see why you would have a problem with us doing so...

I quite agree with the basic sentiments you express; that Obama is forming policy to benefit the USA at the expense of the wider world is to be commended; he's performing the role he was elected to.

Thats exactly the point, we need to get our Manufacturing Capacity back again, things like NAFTA prevent us from doing so...
A ridiculous assertion. Unless the government abolishes a minimum wage and ignores abuses in the workplace, the United States will never rival the rock-bottom labor costs of third world countries. The US needs to forget this pipe dream of reestablishing ourselves as a manufacturing power and focus on the service economy.

but hes taking jobs away from European workers and giving them to Americans!

Not really considering there is nothing barring trade of certain things. Nothing is being violated at all.

well I think the clue is in the name of where the president lives >_>

Bel-Air...wait, no, that was the other black guy I saw on the telly this morning.

My nitwit, populist, protectionist wants-to-kill-NAFTA Senator, <3's this provision. The other one thinks it's silly

A ridiculous assertion. Unless the government abolishes a minimum wage and ignores abuses in the workplace, the United States will never rival the rock-bottom labor costs of third world countries. The US needs to forget this pipe dream of reestablishing ourselves as a manufacturing power and focus on the service economy.

Which would render you further dependent on China, and simply re-affirm the existence of "Chimerica", an organism that is of little benefit to you.

Fuck the workers. In the permanent interests of the nationstate, they can be happily exploited and sacrificed.

http://www.pride2.org/NewPrideSite/Asia/Lesson3/exports.html

I like how 1 and 2 are basically reversed :tongue:

Thats exactly the point, we need to get our Manufacturing Capacity back again, things like NAFTA prevent us from doing so...

why are you so keen on manufacturing? the days of being the poorhouse of the world are long gone (and I mean US goods have quite the reputation)

And because you can just go to Kazakhstan for it...I dont see why you would have a problem with us doing so...

because you would piss and moan if we did so and say it was unfair to wreck Americas breadbasket

Which would render you further dependent on China, and simply re-affirm the existence of "Chimerica", an organism that is of little benefit to you.

Fuck the workers. In the permanent interests of the nationstate, they can be happily exploited and sacrificed.

Its a world economy. I like the US-China trade relationship, and the relationship we have with numerous other countries. Trade is an effective and beneficial way to spread democracy, and it keeps us out of wars.

I like how 1 and 2 are basically reversed
I posted that source then I read it... I think it was China propaganda, but the info doesn't appear to be wrong so... :P

Heaven forfend! Quick, call the BNP!

its just not cricket from a nation claiming to be leading the world in free trade especially after we did not set any such restrictions on our money throwing

Not really considering there is nothing barring trade of certain things. Nothing is being violated at all.

apart from discrimination of companies that buy foreign goods (which is a no-no by WTO rules)

Bel-Air...wait, no, that was the other black guy I saw on the telly this morning.

David Cameron?

Its a world economy. I like the US-China trade relationship, and the relationship we have with numerous other countries. Trade is an effective and beneficial way to spread democracy, and it keeps us out of wars.


For the moment, yes. Your intimacy with China, however, is fundamentally greater than, and thus different to, that you have with other countries, and potentially deleterious, since China could claim relative military and diplomatic parity. Unlike your third world relationships, with China, you cannot presuppose or plan for superiority.

its just not cricket from a nation claiming to be leading the world in free trade especially after we did not set any such restrictions on our money throwing



apart from discrimination of companies that buy foreign goods (which is a no-no by WTO rules)



David Cameron?

Meh. I couldn't criticise the USA for the self-preservatory attitude I would adopt, if empowered, in the UK. Tad hyprocritical.

Bloody good form with the cricketing idiom anyway; I got away with "batting on a sticky wicket" recently in an essay.:tongue:

For the moment, yes. Your intimacy with China, however, is fundamentally greater than, and thus different to, that you have with other countries, and potentially deleterious, since China could claim relative military and diplomatic parity. Unlike your third world relationships, with China, you cannot presuppose or plan for superiority.

Where did I want to? We're essentially living in a bipolar system internationally, which many argue is the strongest international distribution of power when it comes to preventing wars. We don't need to be stronger than China.

I don't know what you're responding to. Not something I said. I'm very confused.

apart from discrimination of companies that buy foreign goods (which is a no-no by WTO rules)

Actually, that's not happening either!

Whats wrong with Americans buying American?

Its not as if we're telling Europe to do it....Not that we have to anyway, lol...

The economy, whether we like it or not, is global and interdependent. What we do in the States affects the rest of the world. What the rest of the world does affects us. In the short run, buying American may help our economy - short term, but in the long run (and we do have to think in the long run), we have to support the economy of the rest of the world and they have to support ours, or the global economic disaster that is being intimated by current events will become more than just a worrying downturn, but will become a full-blown disaster.

Really, the world has become too small for us to be able to think like isolationists.

The economy, whether we like it or not, is global and interdependent. What we do in the States affects the rest of the world. What the rest of the world does affects us. In the short run, buying American may help our economy - short term, but in the long run (and we do have to think in the long run), we have to support the economy of the rest of the world and they have to support ours, or the global economic disaster that is being intimated by current events will become more than just a worrying downturn, but will become a full-blown disaster.

Really, the world has become too small for us to be able to think like isolationists.

It isn't inconceivable that long-run would benefit more from some level of protectionism to stabilize and re-energize the American economy so that it can later better interact with the global economy. I'm not saying that that's how it is or the rationale behind the American products requirement, but that pure, open trade isn't necessarily always beneficial to the long-run by some inherent sense.

Hotwife looks less like a debater and more like a man reacting to events. He should have foreseen the consequences of the source-link before pushing it. Now, instead of looking like a man with a point, Hotwife looks like a man flailing in the water, looking for lifelines, without a clue as to how to argue or an understanding of trade or foreign relations. He projects weakness, uncertainty, and inexperience at a time when right-wing trolls can ill afford any of those three, let alone the hat trick.

Win.

The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill.

So stuff like this...

its discriminatory against every other company that operates in the world (how about we stop buying whatever it is the US sells)

...is crap, because nobody is stopping any private company not involved in stimulus package projects from getting their steel anywhere they damn well please.

I'll also note that the House version of the stimulus package allows for foriegn steel if the use of US steel increases project costs by more than 25%

When one also considers that more than a third of the stimulus package will be tax cuts and federal/state program assistance, and not construction efforts, these complaints about "protectionism" sound increasingly pointless.

Which would render you further dependent on China, and simply re-affirm the existence of "Chimerica", an organism that is of little benefit to you.

Fuck the workers. In the permanent interests of the nationstate, they can be happily exploited and sacrificed.

Except that it's already been revealed that you can get those "Service Industry" services cheaper even than your manufacturing-by sending them to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. etc... and with less need to re-teach basic math and grammar skills than if you use American white-collar workers.

An Indian with a Masters in Engineering runs about 25% what an American with the same level of education and experience runs-and he's got a work-ethic, unlike an American College grad.

So wait . . .people are upset because a US bail-out has targeted US companies specifically? Um, is there something I'm missing here?

So stuff like this...



...is crap, because nobody is stopping any private company not involved in stimulus package projects from getting their steel anywhere they damn well please.

I'll also note that the House version of the stimulus package allows for foriegn steel if the use of US steel increases project costs by more than 25%

When one also considers that more than a third of the stimulus package will be tax cuts and federal/state program assistance, and not construction efforts, these complaints about "protectionism" sound increasingly pointless.

Indeed. To bad peope on here do not see that nor understand that.

So wait . . .people are upset because a US bail-out has targeted US companies specifically? Um, is there something I'm missing here?

Nope! People do not like the US so anything beneficial to the US will cause people to be upset.

Actually, that's not happening either!

what is happening then because its seems to me that targeting companies that only buy American is pretty damn discriminatory against those that don't

...is crap, because nobody is stopping any private company not involved in stimulus package projects from getting their steel anywhere they damn well please.

however its giving those that do a nice little bonus from the government for buying American

you don't have to actively stop companies from buying foreign for it to become protectionist

I'll also note that the House version of the stimulus package allows for foriegn steel if the use of US steel increases project costs by more than 25%

which is ridiculous considering E.U companies must now be a quarter cheaper than their US rivals to be competitive

When one also considers that more than a third of the stimulus package will be tax cuts and federal/state program assistance, and not construction efforts, these complaints about "protectionism" sound increasingly pointless.

tell that to the steel workers who start losing business

Why does the US hate free trade so?

what is happening then because its seems to me that targeting companies that only buy American is pretty damn discriminatory against those that don't

Maybe you should go back and read the provision again since it is obvious you missed it. I can tell you that you are indeed 100% WRONG!

Maybe you should go back and read the provision again since it is obvious you missed it. I can tell you that you are indeed 100% WRONG!

no your 100% wrong ∞+1

however its giving those that do a nice little bonus from the government for buying American

Good...exactly what the stimulus package is supposed to do.

you don't have to actively stop companies from buying foreign for it to become protectionist

Quite right, but I couldn't care less if it's protectionist or not, as long as it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is stimulate the U.S. economy.

which is ridiculous considering E.U companies must now be a quarter cheaper than their US rivals to be competitive

...exactly how much business do European steel producers do with the US Federal goverment?

Are we bitching about 20% or 0.2%?

tell that to the steel workers who start losing business

You be sure to let me know if any European steel workers start losing out as a direct result of this bill.

Actually no! The provision speeks for itself. Delator is correct in what the provision means! It is you that refuses to see that Delator is indeed right! Delator is not wrong and neither am I!

A bad move on the part of Obama, but you can't be perfect.

Good...exactly what the stimulus package is supposed to do.

no its about giving money to struggling US industries which has nothing to do with making American companies buy American or Hire American

Quite right, but I couldn't care less if it's protectionist or not, as long as it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is stimulate the U.S. economy.

oh well then you won't mind if the EU stops buying American consumer goods and you get a nice STFU from the WTO

...exactly how much business do European steel producers do with the US Federal goverment?

enough to impose tariffs back in 2002 (http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-prepares-steel-retaliation-us/article-115911)

You be sure to let me know if any European steel workers start losing out as a direct result of this bill.

should be fun considering how fragile such an industry is

A bad move on the part of Obama, but you can't be perfect.

It is not a bad move at all. Though I oppose the stimulus package on the grounds that the government shoulld not be bailing people out, I agree with the provision for it is OUR ECONOMY and not anyone else's.

A bad move on the part of Obama, but you can't be perfect....When did the president start proposing legislation, again?

Good...exactly what the stimulus package is supposed to do.
While breaking a great many treaties the USA has signed like NAFTA. How convenient... and illegal.



Quite right, but I couldn't care less if it's protectionist or not, as long as it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is stimulate the U.S. economy.
Except that it's not. Not really. You end up paying more for shoddier products. While US steel is helped, US construction is not. They have to pay more and so they'll charge more which fucks the home buyers. Those very people who need to spend their money won't cause it's still too costly.

Protectionism doesn't work. Period.



...exactly how much business do European steel producers do with the US Federal goverment?

Are we bitching about 20% or 0.2%?
Enough to put illegal tariffs in 2002 who got the USA bitchslapped two years ago. Which is really what this provision is all about: putting money illegally in a failing industry in order to pander votes.



You be sure to let me know if any European steel workers start losing out as a direct result of this bill.
The Canadian governments estimates 5000 jobs lost and a billions of lost revenues if the provision passes. Do you really want us to get that money back by stopping exporting our lumber? Yes? Well, then what about our grain? Yes? what about our oil? Waht about our electricity?

You're gonna love the higher than before gas price and the black-out the entire north of the country will experience.

THIS is why Obama doesn't want a trade war... It'll kill whatever chance this recession is going to be short-lived.

It is not a bad move at all. Though I oppose the stimulus package on the grounds that the government shoulld not be bailing people out, I agree with the provision for it is OUR ECONOMY and not anyone else's.

It's not 'your economy' and it's not 'my economy' ether, and it's not 'Britain's economy', or whatever the hell. We all share the same economy, and we're all in this together.

I'm not suggesting that the USA should prop up other countries, but I am suggesting that to say "we're not going to use this money to trade with anyone" when most of the US's economy is BASED on trade, is a bad move.

Oh that evil, evil Bush.....
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5661291.ece

oh wait, this is Obama....

It's not 'your economy' and it's not 'my economy' ether, and it's not 'Britain's economy', or whatever the hell. We all share the same economy, and we're all in this together.

I'm not suggesting that the USA should prop up other countries, but I am suggesting that to say "we're not going to use this money to trade with anyone" when most of the US's economy is BASED on trade, is a bad move.

this

this

Funny how Obama didn't know that until he got caught on it.

It's not 'your economy' and it's not 'my economy' ether, and it's not 'Britain's economy', or whatever the hell. We all share the same economy, and we're all in this together.

Except that every nation has its own GNP, GDP, unemployment rates, etc. So each economy is separate but looked at together when talking about a global economy.

I'm not suggesting that the USA should prop up other countries, but I am suggesting that to say "we're not going to use this money to trade with anyone" when most of the US's economy is BASED on trade, is a bad move.

Except for the fact that nothing here is saying anything here about not trading. So there. :p

Except that every nation has its own GNP, GDP, unemployment rates, etc. So each economy is separate but looked at together when talking about a global economy.

So does every state, and every city, and every town, and every neighborhood. While "GNP" and "GDP" are national scales, there's nothing inherently limiting about the concept to the national scale. You could calculate the gross product for my office if you wanted to.

Funny how Obama didn't know that until he got caught on it.

Funny how people are trying to make this into something that it isn't. Not the first time it occured either.

So does every state, and every city, and every town, and every neighborhood. While "GNP" and "GDP" are national scales, there's nothing inherently limiting about the concept to the national scale. You could calculate the gross product for my office if you wanted to.

GDP is specifically the measure of the gross final production of a single nation. The reason it changed from GNP is that measured things that occurred outside of the boundaries of the nation in question. GDP is a more restrictive measure, so that only domestic production is measured.

Wow the U.S just love breaking treaties whenever possible. First when one or two Canadians Cows got the Mad Cow Disease and the cross-borader beef trade got shut down Americian cattle ranchers did their best to keep it shut down as long as possible to earn $$$. Then they ripped billions off of us when it came to lumber and now their going to try this? Wow! Do they understand that 1.5 billion worth of trade crosses the Canadian-American boradaer EVERY day? Do they understand that the Canadian econmy is more or less American owned and that trade is between suppliers and their buyers? Trust me the last thing either of us want is a trade war but eventally our PM got to have the balls to step up and say enough is enough!

WOW! You know how ignorant you are sounding with this proposal in the bill? You really have no clue as to what it fully means.

WOW! You know how ignorant you are sounding

iiiiiiiiroooooony!

I think America and Europe both need to support their local farmers. America needs to subsidize its farmers and the Europeans need to do the same for theirs. Otherwise, neither the Americans nor the Europeans will have farmers anymore.
It's important to do more to prop them up.

Or, the US, Canada, and Europe could get together and subsidize the farmers of all three parties with a common fund. They certainly need to do something. Western farms are in peril and need saving.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7868799.stm)

So has the new presidency dug themselves a hole with this one? I figure this may turn into one hell of a clusterfuck if this goes to the WTO (its not like we haven't beat the US before at this) or Obama backs down the bill upsetting his unions vote.

I see this as impossible. Particularly since the US doesn't really produce iron or steel anymore. We mostly import.

Under this, his stimulus plan would be a nonstarter because most infrastructure and other building projects require steel. And with the size of the stimulus, we are going to need more than what we are currently able to produce. So, even if so called, "Buy American" did pass, we would still have to buy steel from someone else because we don't have any of our own.

IT comes down to this:

America announces it will not use anyone else's steel.
Europeans could say, "really? then what are you going to use for all your construction projects?"

All those Unions championing "Buy American" are so out of touch they don't realize that the US is neither a mining nor a manufacturing nation anymore. The US economy is 80% based on services, just like the Europeans. The only ones who could claim to have mining as a sizable amount of their economy, among the three, would likely be the Canadians. Such that both Europeans and Americans would be stuck using Canadian steel, meaning the Canadians should get rich quick off this. Assuming they make steel in Canada.

...When did the president start proposing legislation, again?

When its convenient to attack him for it.


Still not seeing the big deal over making sure the US stimulus bill only helps US companies.

Quit your bitchin' Europe.:p

All those Unions championing "Buy American" are so out of touch they don't realize that the US is neither a mining nor a manufacturing nation anymore. The US economy is 80% based on services, just like the Europeans. The only ones who could claim to have mining as a sizable amount of their economy, among the three, would likely be the Canadians. Such that both Europeans and Americans would be stuck using Canadian steel, meaning the Canadians should get rich quick off this. Assuming they make steel in Canada.

Again, all this complaining about the all-powerful union. I'm sorry to break it to you, but unions aren't nearly as powerful as they were even ten years ago, much less as powerful as you seem to think.

As for Canada making steel, I used to drive past this almost every day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essar_Steel_Algoma

no its about giving money to struggling US industries which has nothing to do with making American companies buy American or Hire American

You don't think the US steel industry is struggling?

You think this provision won't aid them significantly?

You don't think it would be a bad thing if the US industrial workforce continues to get laid off, continuing our downward spiral of reduced employment and demand?

oh well then you won't mind if the EU stops buying American consumer goods and you get a nice STFU from the WTO

Considering how often I see Europeans on this site rip on American industry, American craftsmanship, and the American workforce in general, I didn't think you guys imported anything from us anymore. :rolleyes:

Consumer products do not equal industral use metals...but by all means, knock yourselves out.

enough to impose tariffs back in 2002 (http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-prepares-steel-retaliation-us/article-115911)

From your article...


The European Commission proposes sanctions against US products, worth 2.5 billion euro, in retaliation for US tariffs on imported steel.

...

The world steel market faces significant overcapacity and the US has been slow to introduce the necessary restructuring measures. More than 30 US steel producers have gone bankrupt over the last four years.


The US International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled at the end of 2001 that foreign producers have been flooding the US market with cheap imports, and recommended that the US administration should introduce import tariffs for steel.

...and then...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/29/business/steel.php

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-02/02/content_6437063.htm

So Europe is considering the same steps that the U.S. took, but the US has eliminated it's general tariff, while the EU continues to consider a targeted tariff.

And let us remember, the provision in the stimulus package is not a tariff...it is a temporary, targeted subsudy for the US steel making industry that is quite limited in scope.

There will not be a single cent of tariff added to any imported European steel.

If the House provision passes, and American steel is as inefficient as many suggest, then it won't even matter, as the cost loophole will allow for purchase overseas anyways.

I see this as impossible. Particularly since the US doesn't really produce iron or steel anymore. We mostly import.

Under this, his stimulus plan would be a nonstarter because most infrastructure and other building projects require steel. And with the size of the stimulus, we are going to need more than what we are currently able to produce. So, even if so called, "Buy American" did pass, we would still have to buy steel from someone else because we don't have any of our own.

The US Federal government wouldn't...private companies that need steel would.

If US steel is busy with US Government projects, why does it matter, even if it's subsidised? Private companies will still need steel, and to fill the gap in domestic supply, they will gladly continue to buy from Europe (and possibly buy more, which I'm sure you wouldn't complain about) or anyone else who wants to sell.

This could potentially benefit the steel industry on both sides of the Atlantic, while at least preventing a continued economic slide, if not helping to reverse the trend...yet all I'm hearing is inaccurate comparisons to the tariff issue from years ago...

This could potentially benefit the steel industry on both sides of the Atlantic, while at least preventing a continued economic slide, if not helping to reverse the trend...yet all I'm hearing is inaccurate comparisons to the tariff issue from years ago...

To bad people do not see this fact at all.

He's doing the double take because once again, he got caught.

Change you can all believe in. Check out my Sig.

Change you can all believe in. Check out my Sig.

You keep talking about Obama's campaign slogan as if that was ever really relevent.

You keep talking about Obama's campaign slogan as if that was ever really relevent.

Its supposed to relevent like the President who will never lie to you (all of us).

Its supposed to relevent like the President who will never lie to you (all of us).

You realize every single president since the dawn of America has run with the underlying promise to never lie to the people, right?

And how many of them lied?

Oh, right. All of them. Obama will be no different.

I already brought this up, and the Obama lovers here claim it's a lie, and that if he did put it in the bill, he didn't really mean it, and it isn't a sign that he has no foreign policy experience.

Obama can't introduce legislation as president, so he wouldn't likely put anything into any bill.

The problem he faces if the stimulus package gets approved by both houses with that provision is this: The president does not have the authority to issue a line item veto and get rid of pieces of legislation he doesn't like.

He'd either have to hold his nose and sign that bill, thus enacting the "buy American" clause along with the rest of the package or veto legislation he championed because of one bad apple spoiling the cart.

Now, if it comes out later that he did, in fact, champion a "buy American" clause, it's a huge mistake on his part considering the possible ramifications.

You realize every single president since the dawn of America has run with the underlying promise to never lie to the people, right?

And how many of them lied?

Oh, right. All of them. Obama will be no different.

That is my point thanks for admitting it. Now we all know change you can believe in and the President who will never lie to you (all of us) was just a lie to help him get elected. President Obama is just another politician not the saint the media and his campaign made him out to be.

That is my point thanks for admitting it. Now we all know change you can believe in and the President who will never lie to you (all of us) was just a lie to help him get elected. President Obama is just another politician not the saint the media and his campaign made him out to be.

I like how you are saying this as if this is some deep, dark secret that you have unearthed.


No shit he'll probably lie. The thing is, what else will he do? So far, hes told the truth a lot more then he's lied, and hes getting a good deal done (or at least is in the progress of doing so).

America needs to subsidize its farmers
Which world do you live in? We subsidize the hell out of our farmers!

A lie from a President who will never lie to you (all of us) is still a lie, no excuses.

Buy American clause:

Creating inefficient jobs and industry that shouldn't exist, will vanish as soon as the government stops pumping money into it and generally pissing off all your trade partners.

Sounds like a capital idea.

Which world do you live in? We subsidize the hell out of our farmers!

Please, for my edification, tell me why the italicisation was necessary.

Please, for my edification, tell me why the italicisation was necessary.

When to use

* Emphasis: "Smith wasn't the only guilty party, it's true."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_type

Not a native speaker? Italics are never "necessary", but on occasion I do like to use them simply for my own, personal reasons.

A lie from a President who will never lie to you (all of us) is still a lie, no excuses.

Who is making excuses? You really think youve won some arguement, dont you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_type

Not a native speaker? Italics are never "necessary", but on occasion I do like to use them simply for my own, personal reasons.

They're childish and transparent, lacking in subtlety. Bad form.

They're childish and transparent, lacking in subtlety. Bad form.

I'm sorry you feel that way. As soon as the English language decides to agree, I'll stop.

...and the President who will never lie to you (all of us) was just a lie to help him get elected.
Find the quote where he said he'd never lie, please.

I'm sorry you feel that way. As soon as the English language decides to agree, I'll stop.

Given that it's a stylistic issue, I doubt linguistic laws are germane. It's illegality or legality is immaterial against its lack of subtlety.

Who is making excuses? You really think youve won some arguement, dont you?

Yes I do.

Find the quote where he said he'd never lie, please.

I mean, he never said hed lie to us, so clearly, since he didnt campaign on lying to us, he said hed never lie to us!
Yes I do.

How sad that your only victories are imaginary.

Given that it's a stylistic issue, I doubt linguistic laws are germane. It's illegality or legality is immaterial against its lack of subtlety.

You've show me the error of my ways. Surely there is some, more subtle way to emphasize what I want emphasized?

Ah yes, there we go.

Oh and you sound like an idiot. Germane? Who says that?

You've show me the error of my ways. Surely there is some, more subtle way to emphasize what I want emphasized?

Ah yes, there we go.

Oh and you sound like an idiot. Germane? Who says that?

Hardly my fault you're ill-educated is it?

Oh and you sound like an idiot. Germane? Who says that?

Alot of people, including me!

Psh, I say we need protectionism anyway...We've let too much of our Manufacturing Capability escape...
Nah, you don't really want that sort of thing. Bush put a tariff on steel during his first administration. The tariff was good for the steel industry, but bad for everyone that used steel in their products.

You've show me the error of my ways. Surely there is some, more subtle way to emphasize what I want emphasized?

Ah yes, there we go.

Oh and you sound like an idiot. Germane? Who says that?

Incidentally, attacks ad hominem are bad form.

You don't think the US steel industry is struggling?

my heart bleeds for the American companies who can't compete on the global marketplace without waving a big stars and stripes

hey look its your auto industry!

You think this provision won't aid them significantly?

competitiveness is what keeps the free market ticking surely?

You don't think it would be a bad thing if the US industrial workforce continues to get laid off, continuing our downward spiral of reduced employment and demand?

No I do not in the same sense that it wasn't a bad thing when Britain lost its textile industry

if your industries cannot compete you adapt and overcome instead of discriminating those who do not buy from them

Consumer products do not equal industral use metals...but by all means, knock yourselves out.

fair enough *watches US economy implode*

There will not be a single cent of tariff added to any imported European steel.

thats not the point I'm making though is it? what I'm saying is the EU has told you what for before and will likely do so again

If the House provision passes, and American steel is as inefficient as many suggest, then it won't even matter, as the cost loophole will allow for purchase overseas anyways.

*bawww* nobody wants to buy our steel anyway *bawww* why don't you let us have a crutch to support our failing industries *bawww* what about the American worker

get over it the US is still planning on discriminating companies for not buying American which is absurd coming from the very nation that is all for free trade

SNIP

SNIP

don't make me come back there!

my heart bleeds for the American companies who can't compete on the global marketplace without waving a big stars and stripes

hey look its your auto industry!



competitiveness is what keeps the free market ticking surely?



No I do not in the same sense that it wasn't a bad thing when Britain lost its textile industry

if your industries cannot compete you adapt and overcome instead of discriminating those who do not buy from them



fair enough *watches US economy implode*



thats not the point I'm making though is it? what I'm saying is the EU has told you what for before and will likely do so again



*bawww* nobody wants to buy our steel anyway *bawww* why don't you let us have a crutch to support our failing industries *bawww* what about the American worker

get over it the US is still planning on discriminating companies for not buying American which is absurd coming from the very nation that is all for free trade





don't make me come back there!

This whole post shows you still dont understand whats going on.

my heart bleeds for the American companies who can't compete on the global marketplace without waving a big stars and stripes

hey look its your auto industry!



competitiveness is what keeps the free market ticking surely?



No I do not in the same sense that it wasn't a bad thing when Britain lost its textile industry

if your industries cannot compete you adapt and overcome instead of discriminating those who do not buy from them



fair enough *watches US economy implode*



thats not the point I'm making though is it? what I'm saying is the EU has told you what for before and will likely do so again



*bawww* nobody wants to buy our steel anyway *bawww* why don't you let us have a crutch to support our failing industries *bawww* what about the American worker

get over it the US is still planning on discriminating companies for not buying American which is absurd coming from the very nation that is all for free trade





don't make me come back there!

Tish and pish. I'm correct.

my heart bleeds for the American companies who can't compete on the global marketplace without waving a big stars and stripes

hey look its your auto industry!



competitiveness is what keeps the free market ticking surely?



No I do not in the same sense that it wasn't a bad thing when Britain lost its textile industry

if your industries cannot compete you adapt and overcome instead of discriminating those who do not buy from them



fair enough *watches US economy implode*



thats not the point I'm making though is it? what I'm saying is the EU has told you what for before and will likely do so again



*bawww* nobody wants to buy our steel anyway *bawww* why don't you let us have a crutch to support our failing industries *bawww* what about the American worker

get over it the US is still planning on discriminating companies for not buying American which is absurd coming from the very nation that is all for free trade





don't make me come back there!

**report comes across desk and the President shakes his head*

Apparently Call to Power has no idea precisely what is going on nor understands what the proposal means. He's stuck in the past and he's not coming out of it!*

Call to Power? Do us all a favor and relax and come and see the big picture. Nothing is written in the bill that will bar people from using foreign made steel. Nothing at all. The EU is reacting to nothing.

**report comes across desk and the President shakes his head*

Apparently Call to Power has no idea precisely what is going on nor understands what the proposal means. He's stuck in the past and he's not coming out of it!*

Call to Power? Do us all a favor and relax and come and see the big picture. Nothing is written in the bill that will bar people from using foreign made steel. Nothing at all. The EU is reacting to nothing.

You can't have expected it to do something constructive can you?

Just like to point out.

The majority are of Americans are AGAINST free trade.

Just like to point out.

The majority are of Americans are AGAINST free trade.

Firstly; source?

Secondly; providing you are correct, what purpose does this serve?

Hardly my fault you're ill-educated is it?

Of course, because I don't use words like that, I must be ill-educated.

**report comes across desk and the President shakes his head*

I think it would take awhile for the report to circulate tbh they would probably have to track most of my forum posts and do a full background check

Apparently Call to Power has no idea precisely what is going on nor understands what the proposal means. He's stuck in the past and he's not coming out of it!*

times circular I'm in the future

Nothing is written in the bill that will bar people from using foreign made steel.

apart from not getting financial assistance but hey-oh lets just make attacks instead of providing facts

The EU is reacting to nothing.

I can assure you the E.U doesn't react over nothing because that would obviously mean that it reacts all the time...or even when it needs to

Of course, because I don't use words like that, I must be ill-educated.

That you find their usage either archaic, or unusual, would suggest as much, if nothing else. Your use of a variety of different formatting for comedic currency is only reaffirming my disdain anyway.

apart from not getting financial assistance but hey-oh lets just make attacks instead of providing facts

Except the fact that facts have been stated by people you accuse of being wrong without supplying facts that you are right.

I can assure you the E.U doesn't react over nothing because that would obviously mean that it reacts all the time...or even when it needs to

They do react all the time. The problem is the E.U. is reacting over nothing here.

Except the fact that facts have been stated by people you accuse of being wrong without supplying facts that you are right.

what facts do I need? you have the news and in it the EU, Canada and Australia (of all places) give their cases

They do react all the time. The problem is the E.U. is reacting over nothing here.

no it doesn't hence why we are still bickering amongst ourselves with Russia

He's not doing anything right now. The president cannot propose legistlation.

Sure he can.

The word you're looking for is "introduce."

Any "stimulus package" that does not consist entirely and solely of a tax cut is horrendous.

Either it's funded by redistribution, in which case money is being thrown away by being taken from part of the economy the market has already determined is more productive and being given to a part of the economy the market has determined is less productive (because otherwise the market would be sending money there on its own), or it's funded by creating new money, which is inflationary.

Not all inflation is bad. Demand-pull inflation, for instance, is good (assuming one values economic growth, since we must always remember that economics itself is non-normative), as it creates an incentive to produce more.

Bluth, what I don't think you realize, is that if you set government spending equal to tax cuts, government spending puts more money into the economy.

Bluth, what I don't think you realize, is that if you set government spending equal to tax cuts, government spending puts more money into the economy.

You're not making sense. Please elaborate.

VirginiaCooper, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you. Government spending increases debt and lowers the GDP over time.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

You're not making sense. Please elaborate.

There's this thing in macroeconomics called a multiplier. Basically, when the government spends money the amount of money that is actually put into the economy is the amount they spend times (in the US, an estimated) 1.93. Tax cuts only have a multiplier of (again, an estimated) 1.19.

In economics, the multiplier effect refers to the idea that the initial amount of money spent by the government leads to an even greater increase in national income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spending_multiplier

VirginiaCooper, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you. Government spending increases debt and lowers the GDP over time.
Dude why do you post the same thing over multiple threads? I read it in the other thread and its very interesting. It also has nothing to do with the spending multiplier. The CBO isn't saying that government spending won't put money into the economy, they are saying that over a longer period of time, the debt we incur upon ourselves will be more detrimental than the benefits in the short run. I don't mean to attack you, but a better understanding of your sources would do you well.

There's this thing in macroeconomics called a multiplier.

I'm very familiar with it.

But it lacks any theoretical justification, meaning it's worthless.

There's no such thing as "laboratory conditions" in economics, meaning it's almost impossible to derive any sort of meaningful conclusions about what causes what solely by empirical observation of real-world economies since there are so many billions of variables that can hide or offset the effects of the one variable you're concerned with. So all you can go by is the strength of the reasoning behind the theory. And if there's no theory behind it, there can be no reasoning, so it's really not something worthy of consideration or discussion.

I'm very familiar with it.

But it lacks any theoretical justification, meaning it's worthless.

I disagree. If we assume certain conditions, the multiplier is well backed up by them. And these are assumptions that people will spend - not that far of a leap of faith, if you ask me.

For example: a company spends $1 million to build a factory. The money does not disappear, but rather becomes wages to builders, revenue to suppliers etc. The builders will have higher disposable income as a result, so consumption, hence aggregate demand will rise as well. Suppose further all of the recipients of new factory spending in turn spend it. Thus by adding the times money changed hands in this example the multiplier is 2. One person's expense is another's income.

I understand that certain schools reject the idea of a multiplier entirely, but I do not think this is a legitimate argument. When the government injects money into the economy it is for the purpose of spending, and when it is spent, it gets spent again, and again, and so on, thus creating the multiplier effect. To believe that the multiplier doesn't exist or isn't relevant is to believe that it isn't being used multiple times by multiple entities, which I think is an argument that simply cannot be made.

It is also true that the multiplier is dependent upon the marginal propensity to consume, but since this is nearly 100% in the US we have nothing to worry about. ;)

you won't be saying that when the maple embargo goes into full swing and millions of Americans starve from lack of pancakes


Also the 2,028 thousand barrels that the US imports from Canada every day due to NAFTA.

I understand that certain schools reject the idea of a multiplier entirely, but I do not think this is a legitimate argument. When the government injects money into the economy it is for the purpose of spending, and when it is spent, it gets spent again, and again, and so on, thus creating the multiplier effect.

Sure, when someone receives money he is going to spend it, and then whoever gets it from him will spend it too, and so on and so forth. This happens regardless of where the money comes from.

Again, government spending can happen in one of two ways: either through taxation or through deficit spending. As I argued above, all redistributive spending does is take money from a more productive part of the economy and put it into a less productive part (because, otherwise, the market would have sent the money there on its own). Deficit spending, by increasing the total amount of money in circulation, reduces the value of all money in circulation since the new money in the economy does not represent/is not backed by any additional production of wealth. When the amount of money increases but the amount of wealth stays the same, the value of each unit of money is diminished. Economies depend on wealth (which is to say utility, which is only created through production) to run, not money. How much money is spent is irrelevant; what really affects peoples' lives is how much new stuff there is.

Stuff is what matters; all money is is a means of comparing relative amounts of stuff when the stuff we have is of different types.

Does anyone else remember when the IRS gave out all those stimulus funds that people used them to pay bills and not to buy things with?

Does anyone else remember when the IRS gave out all those stimulus funds that people used them to pay bills and not to buy things with?

Paying bills is buying things...

Sure, when someone receives money he is going to spend it, and then whoever gets it from him will spend it too, and so on and so forth. This happens regardless of where the money comes from.
The only difference is that the government has the power to create money. (And the banks, but that's another chapter.)

all redistributive spending does is take money from a more productive part of the economy and put it into a less productive part
Less productive does not equal less important. I know we're looking at this from a strictly economic perspective, but its impossible to do so completely.

Deficit spending, by increasing the total amount of money in circulation, reduces the value of all money in circulation since the new money in the economy does not represent/is not backed by any additional production of wealth. When the amount of money increases but the amount of wealth stays the same, the value of each unit of money is diminished. Economies depend on wealth (which is to say utility, which is only created through production)
This is a very good point. However, if the government strategically places the money, do you not believe that wealth could be created? Their objective is not simply to give each American a thousand dollars, but rather to increase production in sectors of the economy in which the least amount of money creates the largest amount of benefit.

It is not a bad move at all. Though I oppose the stimulus package on the grounds that the government shoulld not be bailing people out, I agree with the provision for it is OUR ECONOMY and not anyone else's.
Have you been paying attention to this recession? could you have possibly failed to have noticed how extremely interconnected our economies are? Look at how the USA's domestic policies have harmed everyone else's economy. As much as the USA likes to think it is above all that, it's not untouchable. If other countries economies suffer yours will too. You might be capable of hurting us more than we hurt you but it will effect you if other economies suffer.

Paying bills is buying things...

Those things didn't need stimulating in the first place.

Paying bills is buying things...

Um...not in the way you're thinking.

This is a very good point. However, if the government strategically places the money, do you not believe that wealth could be created?

How could it? Wealth can only be created by doing something, where that "something" is not such that the very act of engaging in it makes it worth less.

Furthermore, how could government--or any centralized, monolithic entity--possibly have the knowledge and information-processing capability to know where to place this new money? There are literally billions if not trillions of variables involved, and they are changing constantly.

This is why markets work so well. Instead of trying to process all the information all at once, each individual is left to process the bits of information that directly concern him, and conveys the result of that micro-computation to all other participants in the market through the price mechanism.

Have you been paying attention to this recession? could you have possibly failed to have noticed how extremely interconnected our economies are? Look at how the USA's domestic policies have harmed everyone else's economy. As much as the USA likes to think it is above all that, it's not untouchable. If other countries economies suffer yours will too. You might be capable of hurting us more than we hurt you but it will effect you if other economies suffer.

The Federal Government should not be bailing companies! All it does is prolong things. I see people do not learn lessons from history.

The Federal Government should not be bailing companies! All it does is prolong things.

Because I said so!


I see people do not learn lessons from history.

How about you cite some of that history for us, eh?

Because I said so!

Well, other than Obama "saying so", what evidence has he provided that we should continue bailouts and pass the stimulus?

He's offered no evidence other than "Because I won the election!" or "Because I said so!".

how about FDR and his so called New Deal? Did not do much to stimulate the economy at all. All it gave us was the checks on our economy to make sure something like that would not happen again. It took a massive global war to bring us out of the depression.

Well, other than Obama "saying so", what evidence has he provided that we should continue bailouts and pass the stimulus?

He's offered no evidence other than "Because I won the election!" or "Because I said so!".

and, you know, all the economists who agree with him.

That's because they don't understand the consequences.

That's because they don't understand the consequences.

right right, what do economists know about the economy. I think it's time you show them straight. You're an anonymous guy on the internet, surely you know better!

And after you're done, you can have Obama appoint you to the supreme court.

The Federal Government should not be bailing companies! All it does is prolong things. I see people do not learn lessons from history.

Strawman.
I never said that the USA shouldn't bail companies, they should, the buy American thing is a bad way to do it.

Strawman.
I never said that the USA shouldn't bail companies, they should, the buy American thing is a bad way to do it.

What do you expect from an AMERICAN President? He's looking after the AMERICAN People! Does not matter anyway. Though I like the provision, I oppose the measure anyway. It is class A retarded and all it is going to do is prolong the recession.

right right, what do economists know about the economy. I think it's time you show them straight. You're an anonymous guy on the internet, surely you know better!

And after you're done, you can have Obama appoint you to the supreme court.

As much as that would please my wife's mother, no thanks!

how about FDR and his so called New Deal? Did not do much to stimulate the economy at all. All it gave us was the checks on our economy to make sure something like that would not happen again. It took a massive global war to bring us out of the depression.

You know, China has been dissing us lately...

You know, China has been dissing us lately...

So? Who cares if they are? Their olympic stadium is in ruins!

So? Who cares if they are? Their olympic stadium is in ruins!

My jokes are lost on the masses.

Oh you were joking? Wait China dissing us? NNNNUUUUUUUKKKKKKKEEEEEEEE'EEEEEMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!1

It's nice to see that it only took two weeks for the rest of the world to completely and utterly hate our guts again, and prove that no matter who we have running the country, we will never be liked internationally.

Oh you were joking? Wait China dissing us? NNNNUUUUUUUKKKKKKKEEEEEEEE'EEEEEMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!1

:(

*walks away slowly*

Firstly; source?

Secondly; providing you are correct, what purpose does this serve?

Whoops, I forgot to quote who I wanted to. But anyway, there seems to be this idea floating around that Americans want free trade, alot of them do not. Personally I do not support free trade.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/cnn.poll/index.html
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2008/06/poll-roundup-am.html


I can dig up more if you wish. But theres a bunch more polls out there like that, I hate what America has become, a shitty service economy. If we would have never had free trade, we would have been alot better off.

Whats wrong with Americans buying American?

Its not as if we're telling Europe to do it....Not that we have to anyway, lol...
Because international trade is the foundation of prosperity and world peace?

Because international trade is the foundation of prosperity and world peace?

Only if you ignore human propensity for violence when it suits them.

Whats wrong with Americans buying American?

Having signed WTO agreements and then starting protectionism, that's wrong.

IF the US want to raise tarifs, they should leave the WTO. Plain and simple.

But it lacks any theoretical justification, meaning it's worthless.

Are you serious? The basic idea is a simple matter of logic and infinite series. If people spend ninety percent of what they get, then 1 unit of government spending generates 1 + 0.9 + 0.81 + 0.729... units of extra spending in the economy, which converges at 10, or the reciprocal of the marginal propensity to save (here 0.1, 1 - 0.9).

As a matter of fact, it's empirically, not so much theoretically, where things get much dicier, ensuring that it doesn't work out so nicely....

Are you serious? The basic idea is a simple matter of logic and infinite series. If people spend ninety percent of what they get, then 1 unit of government spending generates 1 + 0.9 + 0.81 + 0.729... units of extra spending in the economy, which converges at 10, or the reciprocal of the marginal propensity to save (here 0.1, 1 - 0.9).

I really think you should read the rest of the discussion between myself and Virginia Cooper, especially my next post after the one you've quoted.

Having signed WTO agreements and then starting protectionism, that's wrong.

IF the US want to raise tarifs, they should leave the WTO. Plain and simple.

What a great idea - let's replay the exact causes of the Great Depression, all over again... just to keep the labor unions happy...

Whats wrong with Americans buying American?

One big problem is efficiency. If American products are more expensive or lower quality than comparable foreign imports, we would be wasting significant amounts of money while simultaneously reducing the benefit of the stimulus package. Fewer projects would be possible due to higher costs, reducing the overall amount of goods and services consumed during construction as well as effectively giving a subsidy to businesses that produce an inferior product. Once the stimulus projects are completed, those uneconomical businesses will still fail and we'll probably get a nice present in the future when inferior quality products require costly repairs and replacements.

If American goods are the best quality and value in the world for their respective applications, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be, there should be no need for a "buy American" provision. If those goods are not the best they do not deserve to be used in anything we construct with our tax dollars.

We seriously need to get away from the current policy of rewarding the most incompetent and least efficient people and companies in our economy.

What a great idea - let's replay the exact causes of the Great Depression, all over again... just to keep the labor unions happy...
As long as we seem determined to replay the Great Depression, how long before Obama puts forth an anti-competition bill? I was reading more about NIRA and I'm more and more worried that we're headed down that road.