QuoteUS penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing
By JENNIFER LOVEN (AP) – 5 hours ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's decision to impose trade penalties on Chinese tires has infuriated Beijing at a time when the U.S. badly needs Chinese help on climate change, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and the global economy.
China condemned the White House's announcement late Friday as protectionist and said it violated global trade rules. At home, the punitive tariffs on all car and light truck tires coming into the U.S. from China may placate union supporters who are important to the president's health care push.
Chen Deming, China's minister of commerce, said the penalties would hurt relations with the U.S. A ministry statement said Obama had "compromised to the political pressure of the U.S. domestic trade protectionism."
"The Chinese government will continue to uphold the legitimate interests of China's domestic industry and has the right to take corresponding measures," Deming said.
Obama had until this coming Thursday to accept, reject or modify a U.S. International Trade Commission ruling that a rising tide of Chinese tires into the U.S. hurts American producers. The United Steelworkers blames the increase for the loss of thousands of American jobs.
The federal trade panel recommended a 55 percent tariff in the first year, 45 percent in the second year and 35 percent in the third year. Obama settled on 35 percent the first year, 30 percent in the second and 25 percent in the third, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said
"The president decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case," Gibbs said.
The decision comes as U.S. officials are working with the Chinese and other nations to plan an economic summit in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24-25 of the 20 leading rich and developing nations. China will be a major presence at the meeting, and the United States will be eager to show it supports free trade.
Many of the nearly two dozen world leaders Obama is hosting have made strong statements critical of countries that protect their key industries. Obama, too, has spoken out strongly against protectionism, and other countries will view his decision on tires as a test of that stance.
Governments around the world have suggested the U.S. talks tough against protectionism only when its own industries are not threatened. U.S. rhetoric on free trade also has been questioned because of a "Buy American" provision in the U.S. stimulus package.
The tire decision could have ramifications on issues such as the nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea and on efforts to address climate change. China is the world's third-largest economy and a veto-holding member of the U.N. Security Council.
Roy Littlefield, executive vice president of the Tire Industry Association, which opposes the tariff, said it would not save American jobs. He said the penalties would cause tire manufacturers to move production to another country with less strict environmental and safety controls, less active unions and lower costs than the United States.
The steelworkers union brought the original case in April, accusing China of making a recent push to unload more tires ahead of Obama's expected action. The union says more than 5,000 tire workers have lost jobs since 2004, as Chinese tire overwhelmed the U.S. market.
The U.S. trade representative's office said four tire plants closed in 2006 and 2007 and three more are closing this year. During that time, just one new plant opened. U.S. imports of Chinese tires more than tripled from 2004 to 2008 and China's market share in the U.S. went from 4.7 percent of tires purchased in 2004 to 16.7 percent in 2008, the office said.
In a two-page statement China said the tariffs do not square with the facts.
There hasn't been an obvious increase of exports of tires to the U.S., the statement said, citing a 2.2 percent increase in 2008 from 2007, and a 16 percent fall in exports in the first half of 2009 compared with first half of 2008.
The new tariffs, on top of an existing 4 percent tariff on all tire imports, take effect Sept. 26.
For the Chinese government, the tire dispute threatens an economic relationship crucial to China's economic growth. There was speculation before the decision that new tariffs could produce public pressure on Beijing to retaliate, potentially leading to a trade war.
WTF? Maybe I missed it in the article, but on what grounds is this tariff punitive, other than for loss of American jobs? Is this Obama's version of steel tariffs?
QuoteChina condemned the White House's announcement late Friday as protectionist and said it violated global trade rules.
Now that's some funny shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2009, 04:00:02 PM
QuoteChina condemned the White House's announcement late Friday as protectionist and said it violated global trade rules.
Now that's some funny shit.
Good. The US should ignore the rules when it comes to the bad guys.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2009, 01:49:46 PM
WTF? Maybe I missed it in the article, but on what grounds is this tariff punitive, other than for loss of American jobs? Is this Obama's version of steel tariffs?
That, and where does massive overexporting of tires to the US constitute a "legitimate interest of Chinese
domestic industry?" Somebody's got their panties in a bunch because Obama won't let them take over tire manufacture the way Mexico's taken over the US glass manufacturing industry?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 12, 2009, 10:45:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2009, 01:49:46 PM
WTF? Maybe I missed it in the article, but on what grounds is this tariff punitive, other than for loss of American jobs? Is this Obama's version of steel tariffs?
That, and where does massive overexporting of tires to the US constitute a "legitimate interest of Chinese domestic industry?" Somebody's got their panties in a bunch because Obama won't let them take over tire manufacture the way Mexico's taken over the US glass manufacturing industry?
My comment was against the tariffs. Protectionism is bad.
Great. You leave Russia and now you are gravitating toward China.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
Great. You leave Russia and now you are gravitating toward China.
he craves powerful cock.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2009, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
Great. You leave Russia and now you are gravitating toward China.
he craves powerful cock.
At least I don't crave big black cock rabbits.
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2009, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2009, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
Great. You leave Russia and now you are gravitating toward China.
he craves powerful cock.
At least I don't crave big black cock rabbits.
So which kind of cocks do you crave? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2009, 09:52:26 PM
So which kind of cocks do you crave? :unsure:
Presidential.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 13, 2009, 09:37:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2009, 09:34:56 PM
At least I don't crave big black cock rabbits.
:unsure:
Do you not remember the meme, or are you trying to place it chronologically?
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2009, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2009, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
Great. You leave Russia and now you are gravitating toward China.
he craves powerful cock.
At least I don't crave big black cock rabbits.
don't forget, he only craves them in mexico :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 13, 2009, 09:37:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2009, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2009, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
Great. You leave Russia and now you are gravitating toward China.
he craves powerful cock.
At least I don't crave big black cock rabbits.
:unsure:
You fail at Languish trivia. Now go swallow Lester Holmes' baby batter on MSNBC.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2009, 01:49:46 PM
WTF? Maybe I missed it in the article, but on what grounds is this tariff punitive, other than for loss of American jobs? Is this Obama's version of steel tariffs?
the unique terms of China's WTO succession were such that under certain conditions, other members could impose restrictions on imports even if the usual conditions for doing so (valid retaliation) were not present. Import restrictions can be imposed if there is an "import surge" that threatens domestic business. The surge mechanism was put in place because of the fear that there could be a disruptive effect in transititioning to Chinese WTO membership.
However, if the chinese trade guy is correct, there is no import surge and imports have actually been declining. I think this is more obama paying back constituencies than sound trade policy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 14, 2009, 09:46:15 AM
I think this is more obama paying back constituencies than sound trade policy.
:bleeding:
Normally I would say that I'm tyring of all this Obama-bashing, and that it is really just retreading old ground. But I'm now thinking that my inflated expectations have been punctured.
:bleeding: :frusty: Puns blow.
Quote from: Warspite on September 14, 2009, 11:30:04 AM
Normally I would say that I'm tyring of all this Obama-bashing, and that it is really just retreading old ground. But I'm now thinking that my inflated expectations have been punctured.
Best keep low profile, then.
These puns fall flat, IMO.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2009, 11:56:11 AM
These puns fall flat, IMO.
You're really deflating the atmosphere.
So Obama's inflated the issue to the level of Bush's steel-belted tariffs. Hopefully, the next rotation will bring in someone who can puncture the sidewalls and send this protectionist pattern into a skid.
Hrmm. I wonder if this is supposed to appease the unions for the fact health reform won't include their major demands?
I Rubber you Wu whatever you say bounce off me stick to you!
This punning is getting really tired.
Hu's on first.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 14, 2009, 12:45:00 PM
Hrmm. I wonder if this is supposed to appease the unions for the fact health reform won't include their major demands?
Hopefully it's an attempt to appease them for failure to pass The Blackmail Everyone Into Joining a Union Act of 2009.