Monday, August 22, 2005

US Trade Practices: Animosity Made Me Speak

Used to be my homey
Used to be my ace
Now I wanna slap the taste out yo mouth
By now we're all well aware that the US has reneged on NAFTA, prompting some Canadians to take the US side. Unfortunately, pretending to be a Canadian patriot is nothing new to a select few of our Blogging Tory Brethren. And that is too bad.

But back on topic here..In a stunning reversal, the US has come out in favour of free trade!
"Fairness or adherence to the normal rules of the free market is not the top priority of the Chinese government."
So, does this mean the US will start complying with written trade deals they have signed? Nope. They are talking about an attack on Chinese imports. Of course, another trade organization has stated that would be against free trade rules.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There is no case for trade retaliation against China because of its foreign exchange policy, IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato said on Thursday.
But that isn't stopping our Southern friends.
Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, acknowledged Thursday that "the ardor has cooled, but not permanently." He is co-sponsor, with Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, of a measure that would impose a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese imports if China does not revalue its currency.

So let's review, shall we?
1. The US agrees to follow the "normal rules of the free market"
2. It is against the "normal rules of the free market" to illegally attack a large trading partner with trade tariffs.
3. The US is opting to use massive tariffs to illegally support inefficient and uncompetitive home industries.
Sound familiar?

It's fine. Keep walkin' where ya go. We're holding some aces as some US publications have noticed:
Would Canada cut off U.S. energy supplies? In times past, the answer would have been, of course not. But last week, when asked how far his country would go, Trade Minister Peterson ruled out nothing. He said his government would “consider all possible options for promoting Canada’s interests in this longstanding dispute.”

And, in addition to putting energy supplies at risk and getting in the way of mutually beneficial trade relations, Washington’s needlessly confrontational softwood lumber stance could damage cooperation on U.S.-Canadian border issues, and the development of common terrorism strategies, military planning and overall good will.
Now I wouldn't put a hard quota on the US oil exports, but I would support sending pipelines to the Westcoast for export and refining for Asian export-preferably to India...rather than south.
Just to recap
For those at the back
This is everyday tit-for-tat
--The Streets

No comments: