Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Imposes Big Tariffs On Korean Chipmakers

dipfan writes "This is serious - the U.S. government has decided to levy steep import tariffs on South Korean computer chips (and Vietnamese catfish). The result is a 44 percent tariff on DRAM semiconductors made by Hynix. The case was brought by Micron Technology on the grounds that the South Koreans were receiving unfair subsidies. Hynix says the tariff is 'outrageous', and the South Koreans plan to appeal to the World Trade Organisation."

32 of 827 comments (clear)

  1. Coincidence? by dolphin-brother · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Micron's lobbying wouldn't have anything to do with Micron posting a loss last quarter, would it? Nah. Of course not.

  2. Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I hope you remember to giggle next time when you hear people from this administration talk about "market economics." This is not an isolated case. Take a look a steel tarifs, orange juice, and many other goods whose domestic producers have been loyal Bush lobbyists.

    Bush should be trying to stimulate the tech economy. Instead, he's killing the US$ to historic lows, and now this? Pretty weak!

    1. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not quite sure you can claim Bush brought "integrity" to the office, he did afterall win with a margin of victory so slim it could have been overturned had disputed results in a territory run by his brother gone the other way... there's never going to be a scandal-free president ever again, especially when there's always more than half the nation looking for something to attack.

      You can't blame the residents of the White House for everything that goes wrong or assign them credit for everything that goes right. The real world is just a whole lot more complex than that.

    2. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by dafoomie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What dickhead modded this flamebait? He makes an excellent point. Some tarriffs are legit, but on others you need only follow the money trail. Great way to treat our "closest ally" in the region, who we're already very unpopular with. If someone put a tarriff on us, we would throw sanction after sanction on them (remember when Japan put a tarriff on us for cars I think in the 90s? And we put about a 100% tarriff on Japanese cars? Fair or not, we did it). Guess the Chinese and Taiwanese plants'll be doing better.

    3. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by dvdeug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The man brought much needed integrity back to the presidential position.

      Instead of getting blowjobs from the interns, he's putting felons, convicted for wrongful acts in high office (Poindexter), in high office again. I'd rather have integrity as president then integrity as a person, if I'm forced to choose.

    4. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by WatertonMan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I may well be incorrect, but I seem to recall that the problem was that many of the American steel mills were simply not well designed. The ones using newer designs *can* compete. The problem is that those which can't get no aid.

      The complaints against Canada are typically that socialized medicine and so forth lower costs. I suppose that is true to an extent. But, as someone else mentioned, the large number of easily accessable trees also does.

      There never is a truly level playing field. Complaining about that and then asking for tarriffs is akin to asking that the kid in class who gets all the A's ought to be penalized a few points because the rest aren't as smart.

      Don't get me wrong. There are times when tarrifs are appropriate. But thus far the US isn't doing too well with the WTO.

    5. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      chemical weapons are pretty hard to destroy and require very large incinerators that would easily be spotted by satelliete.

      So where are they?

      Nobody, not the French or Hans Blix or anyone else has any kind of coherent evidence that indicates that these weapons were destroyed.

      So where are they?

      18 chemical-factory trucks.
      Where?

      1550 R-400 bombs.
      Where?

      7,000 gallons of anthrax.
      Where?

      572 gallons of concentrated aflatoxin.
      Where?

      15,000 gallons of botulinum.
      Where?

      500 tons of mustard gas, sarin gas and VX nerve gas.
      Where?

      If you are so retarded as to think that it is impossible to hide a bomb in a country the size of Iraq... you have other issues.

      If it was a bomb, I could buy it. But we've been told there are many more weapons. That they were a threat to America, and the world. You'd think we'd have found something by now. We knew what they had, right? How come we can't find a single thing? Not one goddamn thing. And don't waste my time with the fucking 'chemical trailers.' I want to see barrels of anthrax. I want to see warheads with mustard gas, on missiles that can reach Washington. Show me. Just one. I'll believe you then. Just one.

      And if you tell me they're in Iran, I weep for the world.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  3. Business as usual by SAN1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Demand free trade to 3rd world countries, close the internal market. Nothing to see here.

  4. Well by 7x7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the U.S. is going to get itself involved in the WTO, it should learn to play by it's own rules. Free trade? Or free trade only when it's good for us?

    1. Re: Well by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


      > Free trade? Or free trade only when it's good for us?

      For a curious conception of 'us'.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Well by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the South Korean government has repeatadly propped up a dying company that dumps product onto the market below cost? This is generally considered a bad thing and if we can get rid of the last vestiges of this type of protectionism (all countries are guilty of it to some degree, the Americans subsidize their farmers as do the French, etc) then maybe free trade might eventually become a reality, but as long as one country is proping up some sectors and allowing them to undercut the rest of the market free trade without sanctions is kind of a pipe dream.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Well by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think all nations should just drop the pretenses of "fairness" and "openness" and just assume that protectionism is a fact of life.

      Protectionism is a harmful and ultimately self destructive practice. Unfortunately there are always self serving groups pushing for these sorts of measures. Protectionism should not be accepted as a "fact of life".

      Protectionist policies were one of the reasons the great depression was so deep and long. When things started to go sour countries all over the world starting implementing these kinds of policies to "protect themselves" and international trade came to a grinding halt.

      On the other hand world trade treaties do recognize a right to retaliate to unfair trade practices. I don't know much about what's going on with the South Korean chips, but if they are in fact dumping them below cost then tariffs are permitted.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Well by Teancom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an employee of Micron, I do.

      As a stockholder of Micron, when a vested interest in seeing Micron able* to make a profit, I do.

      As a resident and homeowner in the Treasure Valley (Boise and surrounding area for non-Idahoans) where 12,000 people are employed by Micron, I do.

      As a resident of Idaho, where (supposedly) one out of every twenty people is employed by Micron, I do.

      As a resident of the US, where Micron is the *only* remaining US company producing dram, I do.

      As a guy who's done his econ. homework and realizes that there are two outcomes from the current situation: eventual failure of all but a couple dram companies and resultant (bi|mo)nopoly pricing *or* return to free competition and fair pricing, I do.

      But go ahead and demand 512Mb sticks of PC2700 for $30. I mean, after all, why should *you* care?

      *not gaurunteed, just able. As Appleton is fond of saying, we'll compete with any company out there, but we can't compete against governments.

    5. Re:Well by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the South Korean government has repeatadly propped up a dying company that dumps product onto the market below cost? This is generally considered a bad thing and if we can get rid of the last vestiges of this type of protectionism (all countries are guilty of it to some degree, the Americans subsidize their farmers as do the French, etc) then maybe free trade might eventually become a reality, but as long as one country is proping up some sectors and allowing them to undercut the rest of the market free trade without sanctions is kind of a pipe dream.

      You're fundamentally mistaken. Protectionism on their part doesn't justify, necessitate, or in any way indicate the wisdom of protectionism on our part. They're (assuming the allegations are true, and they probably are) shooting themselves in the foot, so therefore we must shoot ourselves in the foot also? How does that work?

      If you want free trade, drop your trade barriers. Simple as that. If other countries do not then they will pay for that decision. You don't need to do anything to make that happen, it's just like jumping off a building makes you go splat. If the vietnamese want to lose money selling catfish (and that particular allegation I don't believe for a moment, but assume it's true for sake of argument) then let them! Enjoy the cheap catfish while it lasts. Mothball those catfish farms and do something more productive with your time and capital. When they wise up or run out of money and the price goes back up to where it makes sense to compete again, then jump back in. That's just economics 101.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  5. Club stomped upon by canuck_wingnut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sombody took a cue from the dorks trying to destroy the Canadian lumber industry, I see.
    Korea, welcome to the club.

    ------------------
    "nosce te ipsum"
    ------------------

    --
    -: :- mv sco /dev/null because a computer is a terrible thing to waste. -:
    1. Re:Club stomped upon by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How hypocritical. Did you know the United States pays the limber industry money to ship below cost?

      Thats right, we are paying the lumber industry to not only cut down tree's inside national parks but to ship it below costs.

      Then the US has the nerve to cry foul when Canada does the same thing.

  6. This is bad... by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This gives Micron carte blanche to raise their prices by 44%, which while it may save a few jobs in Idaho, will ultimately cost even more jobs at US companies that buy memory (think the likes of Dell and so forth).

    Tariffs BAD! Free trade GOOD!

  7. The *US* complains of Foreign Subsidies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US government imposes tariffs due to foreign subsidised business selling into the US market.

    Pot calls kettle black.

    The US government is the worst offender on Earth with subsidising industries to kill foreign competition.

    Is the free market being peddled by the US so hard to implement on their own shores? Do they hate others using their own tactics against them?

  8. I doubt this will be popular... by Chalst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't suppose too much of the US computer industry will be happy about this, seeing as it is bound to drive up prices when the sector is on the edge...

  9. Just like Canadian Softwood. by Red+Meanie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The US is doing exactly the same thing to BC. If a non-US market is more competitive than an American producer, the American government slaps a huge tariff.

    Exactly the same thing happened with Canadian softwood lumber even though we have a supposed free trade agreement. It'll go to the WTO, the S. Koreans will win but that'll take years. In that time, their industry is crippled.

    1. Re:Just like Canadian Softwood. by statusbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, but American Home Builders are the ones getting shafted as the price of their new house is directly affected and increased. Canada still shipped a LOT of wood under this tariff. U.S. customers still buy it even at the higher price. So economically, the softwood lumber tariff hurt the U.S. citizens.

      If you are going to have free trade, do free trade.

      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
  10. Corruption. by YahoKa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to the invisible corruption. The consumer now supports micron to be inefficient, and looses out big time. If Korea was subsidizing their DRAM makers, we should be happy: That would mean their tax payers are paying for us to have cheap memory. However, since Micron gains with the tariffs, the gains are concentrated to one company and they lobby (probably pay) government officials for the tariffs. Such a shame, because it happens much more than we know about; this is on slashdot because it is about DRAM. If only everyone could see ...

  11. Re:Worst part is tariff goes directly to Micron by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Micron is NOT inefficient, in fact they are one of the more healthy memory makers, it's just that they can't compete with a government propped business that dumps chips below production costs. The EU is not very happy about Hynix either so it's not just the American's protecting a weak company.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  12. Re:Tariffs are wrong... by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, Corporate Welfare is wrong. And that's exactly what the South Korean government is doing. If you had bothered to read the first paragraph of the article you would know that the reason the Commerce Department is levying this tariff because it believes the Korean government is illegally subsidizing chip exports.

    This tariff is just leveling the playing field, but "U.S. imposes chip tariff in response to Korean subsidy" doesn't draw nearly as many eyeballs to the advertisements below the article.

  13. It's our companies vs. a whole government by ee_moss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's great that the U.S. finally gave Hynix the boot. The S. Korean government has been keeping them alive and competing with our companies, even though Hynix has failed to produce a profit and would basically go in the red if it weren't for all the government money keeping it alive.

    Companies like that deserve to die - if you're not producing a profit, and you're causing U.S. companies to lose money, why should the U.S. continue to allow you to do business with us? It's our semiconductor industry vs. the entire south korean government - that's bad for the people who work at micron and other semiconductor companies. Think about the people trying to make a living here, for pete's sake.

    It's hard enough dealing with domestic competitors, let alone an entire foreign government. 100% tariff would do just fine too.

  14. Re:How about charge extra for labor? by SAN1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But, as I've said, it's no news. Recently, U.S. Gov. has put huge barriers against steel from others, more competitive countries (Brazil, E.U., etc.).

    U.S. preaches capitalism to the world, and, by the way, I have nothing against that. But, when others show themselves better than U.S. in some tiny economic niche, all the courageous, competitive dogma goes away and "protective tarrifs" come in place.

    Wasn't big american companies also subsidized? Airlines, Aerospace companies, etc...? What is so different with South Koreans?

  15. Re:Tariffs are wrong... by Tsian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So why, exactly, does the US like to beat the free trade drum?

    Because it's no tariffs on the products they export, but they can put tariffs on anything they decide deserves it.

    That isn't free trade.

    Personally, I don't want free trade. Most people don't want free trade. But if you are going to ram it down our throats you may as well actually let the populace see the full effect of it.

  16. Re:Tariffs are wrong... by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is a company supposed to "compete" with South Korean government subsidies? The Korean taxpayers are subsidizing the low cost of Hynix products. Why *shouldn't* the U.S., and E.U., apply a tarriff to Hynix products? Should the U.S. and the E.U. allow countries like S.K. and companies like Hynix destroy their native industries? No. Should they subsidize their native industries in return? No. Should they apply a tarriff that negates the effects of the South Korean subsidies? Yes!

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  17. Um.... US is one of the world's largest exporters. by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The low foriegn prices are not worth the loss of local jobs. Every country needs to be a little independant.

    Man. Are you lost.

    The US is one of the world's largest manufacturers and exporters. Why do you think most large US companies have sales offices all over the world. Think IBM, Microsoft, Oracle. Equipment manufacturers like Caterpillar. Telecom like ATT. All these firms bring in a large amount of money from foreign countries.

    Get this straight. The problem is not that small countries rely on the US for handouts. The problem is unfair trade policies that actualy hinder these countries ability to compete.

    Policies like demanding they open their markets while protecting yours.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  18. The Simpsons, from whom all wisdom flows... by runlvl0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why would a money-losing company cheat any more than a money-making company? Afterall, the money-making company is more likely to have succeded at cheating...
    Lisa: Dad, I think he's an ivory dealer! His boots are ivory, his hat is ivory, and I'm pretty sure that check is ivory.
    Homer: Lisa, a guy who's got lots of ivory is less likely to hurt Stampy than a guy whose ivory supplies are low.

    -- Simpsons [1F15] "Bart Gets an Elephant"
    --

    Carthago delenda est!
  19. $50 Billion/year is little?!?! by thefinite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry did you say *little* more cost? Try $50 Billion/year for us and $150 Billion a year for the third world. link. Steel tariffs alone are essentially paying US steel workers each something like $80,000 in inefficient prices. Yet they don't really make that much, even though we pay it. Poverty is not a measure of how much you make, but of how much you can buy. Tariffs *invariably* make consumers poorer.

    --
    Boom Shanka
  20. Yes and.. by Kwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's exactly what the US said about softwood lumber. Despite the fact they've said it three times before and have been proven wrong each time,and despite preliminary rulings coming down suggesting they'll be proven wrong yet again.

    It's also exactly what the US said with respect to Canada's grain industry, despite the nine previous times they've said so, and being proven wrong each and every time.

    So you'll excuse me if I don't believe the US BS.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze