business

WTO rules against Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs

9 Comments
By PAUL WISEMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

9 Comments
Login to comment

“Everybody knew that it was clear protectionism,’’ Christine McDaniels said

No Christine, everybidy knows the facts, that you don't.

USA import mostly pig iron, whilst it produces mostly specialty steel in small mills. Therefore no competition.

It is a national security concerns much like Germany relying on Russian energy that USA has to rely on belligerents to supply it with steel used in the production of defense equipments.

USA steel produced from scraps is what's competing directly with China, so again, it's necessary to preserve the recycling industry, because in times of war USA doesn't have to worry about ore shipments lost in transit.

Sigh 'analyst'...specialising in what?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The top five nations the US imports steel from are Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Japan. Lesser quantities come from Taiwan and Vietnam. Import penetration, how much steel used in the US is from foreign sources, is about 25%. The steel and aluminum tariffs affected US friends and allies, not adversaries. And as a degreed economist I can say with complete certainty that yes it was always clear from the outset that the tariffs were protectionist. All they accomplished was to drive up prices and reward inefficiency, which is what all tariffs do.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The steel and aluminum tariffs affected US friends and allies, not adversaries

Read the story in full. Japan complain for all but 2 weeks then it got a work around. The policy worked, all the issues with allies got resolved.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Read the story in full. Japan complain for all but 2 weeks then it got a work around. The policy worked, all the issues with allies got resolve

That doesn't change the fact that the tariffs were protectionist and a violation of WTO rules the US agreed to adhere to. The US knew the tariffs would never pass muster with the WTO, which is why the US refused to allow replacements for retiring judges during the previous President's term, attempting to break the WTO and prevent it from investigating and holding hearings on the matter. The US richly deserves to get its weewee slapped hard for what it did. And, it needs to end the tariffs yesterday. Learn some basic macroeconomics and trade theory please.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Every new day there is new bad news for Trumpyclown.

LOOOOL !!!..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That doesn't change the fact that the tariffs were protectionist and a violation of WTO rules

Nope, and even the current White House disagree with you, that's both side of politics, bipartisan, transnational if you want to include allies as well.

What China does with WTO rules is blatant disregard, and China won't even give reason, it just stays silent, eg when it block export of rare-earths to Japan, or slap 200% tariffs on Australian wine (despite an FTA). But hey, it's not a playground you seem to think it is.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Trump is a serial loser.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What China does with WTO rules is blatant disregard, and China won't even give reason, it just stays silent, eg when it block export of rare-earths to Japan, or slap 200% tariffs on Australian wine (despite an FTA). But hey, it's not a playground you seem to think it is.

Deflection to China doesn't change the fact that tariffs, any tariffs, are inherently protectionist. I disagree with the tripe the US government is saying. I'm an economist and know better. They are playing word games to justify protecting an industry that has not invested in the latest technologies, is inefficient and thus over priced by global standards. Stop making excuses for sloth and laziness. Why should the consumer pay more for products to protect the profits of inefficient companies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Create a level playing field to start with... which means excluding China for starters, then figure out what's reasonably competitive to import and what is not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites