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."

Comments

Coincidence?

[dolphin-brother]

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

Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade"

[Dr. Spork]

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!

Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade"

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade"

[dvdeug]

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.

Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade"

[WatertonMan]

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.

Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade"

[Anonymous DWord]

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.

Business as usual

[SAN1701]

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

Well

[7x7]

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?

Re:Well

[afidel]

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.

Re:Well

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Well

[Teancom]

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.

This is bad...

[leviramsey]

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!

The *US* complains of Foreign Subsidies?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Just like Canadian Softwood.

[Red Meanie]

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.

Re:Worst part is tariff goes directly to Micron

[afidel]

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.

Re:Tariffs are wrong...

[Dr. Bent]

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.

Re:How about charge extra for labor?

[SAN1701]

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?

Re:Tariffs are wrong...

[Tsian]

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.

Re:Tariffs are wrong...

[1010011010]

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!

The Simpsons, from whom all wisdom flows...

[runlvl0]

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"