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."

86 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.

    1. Re:Coincidence? by HornyBastard77 · · Score: 5, Informative
      No I think it has more to do with Hynix making posting a loss (of about $800 mil, and its operating loss). If they were able to recoup their costs then Micron's claims of them artificially deflating their prices would not hold much water. As it stands, this does appear to be a case of government aided dumping.

    2. Re:Coincidence? by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with trade law is that your definition of dumping is slightly off. As applied, it's often defined as when an import is sold at a price below what the domestic producer's cost is. So the foreign manufacturer may well be making a profit due to currency conversion or greater efficiency, but the domestics run to the government with hat in hand claiming that they'll be out of business in no time without punitive tariffs in place.

      There are very few examples of companies that lobby for a temporary import restriction, and actually use that timeframe to revamp their operations and compete successfully in the open market after the restrictions are lifted. The best example I can recall is Harley Davidson.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:Coincidence? by lobsterGun · · Score: 3, Funny

      This reminds me of the economist joke I heard a few weeks ago.

      Two economists are walking down the street and see a $50 bill on the sidewalk.

      The first economist leans over to pick up the bill, but the other second economist stops him. The Second Economist explains, "If it were worth picking up, someone would have done it already."

  2. FIXED LINKS by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Informative
    I fucked up all the links, damnit. Sorry:

    ft
    eetuk
    ZDNET
    e-insite

    1. Re: FIXED LINKS by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > PS: who else would love to shove their piece up into the Asian chick on the âoeInsight by WebTrendsâ AD that keeps popping up?
      ...

      > I fucked up all the links, damnit

      Browsers don't support that kind of 'gesture'.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. 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 jimmy_dean · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good one, isolated cases without proof. Not mentioning the number of fantastic things that Bush has done. It's always about "what do I get from the current president?" The man brought much needed integrity back to the presidential position. He is a strong leader in the time of terrorism, war and uncertain economies brought about by Bill Clinton. What more do you want? Nobody's perfect nor sees things your way all of the time. Give the guy a break.

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by Sokie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since the state-controlled banks in South Korea seem to be willing to perpetually forgive, extend, or renegotiate Hynix's tremendously large debt burden, the USA (and EU) are only protecting their companies from unfair competition. The South Korean government is basically subsidizing Hynix through their banks. The headline is somewhat misleading because this tariff (if I understand it correctly) only effects Hynix's products, not all South Korean memory manufacturers (if there are any others) and certainly this doesn't effect Taiwanese manufacturers.

      Here's a couple links to Hynix's most recent multi-billion dollar bailout.
      http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,57 71168%255E15316,00.html
      http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/wbc20021 230017953.htm

      --
      ------
      Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
    5. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by dpete4552 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let's see, thanks to Bush I've been able to witness a war over weapons of mass destruction (Iraq has WoMD you just can't see them fool), I've been given the honor to go through a POS economy (and don't give me this Clinton set it up crap, the GOP was in office for 6 years before Clinton, and for 6 years the economy crap), the Bush appointed Ashcroft cut the DOJ's budget for the Microsoft case & changed course from justice to slap on the wrist (if you can even call it that), the Bush appointed Ashcroft -- gaining control via the homeland security bill -- put an end to the inconvenient reports filed by the ATF each year that showed the stats of gun dealers in regards to them being caught selling illegally, my state -- along with the vast majority of the states -- are poor as hell now due to tax cuts that lead to a drastic cut in federal funding...

      Oh, but this president doesn't get laid, so I guess that should make me proud. Because getting laid is much more shameful than inciting a war that lead to the death of thousands of innocent people (Oh, I think I figured it out, Saddam is using ultra-high tech /invisable/ WoMD!).

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
    6. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by pi_rules · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.


      I'll bite.

      Steel tarrifs are there for a reason. I don't know the current situation in detail, but when NAFTA hit Canada started sucking up the steel business. They were much cheaper than US counterparts. I know this because my own father (we're from Michigan) started buying Canadian steel products because of this. As far as I know the Canadian steel is so much cheaper because the production is subsidized by the government. Canada is a bit more socialist than the US so the taxpayers foot the bill in getting industries the help they need. Result is that it's cheaper for us than US products.

      Things like NAFTA are fair only when employers are playing on the same ground across countries and that just doesn't happen in this economy. US employers are -strapped- with taxes that other countries just don't see and sure as hell aren't helped out by the government. Save the "what about Enron" combacks too -- I'm talking about good honest businesses. We're fucked in a global economy.
    7. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by Fishead · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Canada we have these things called "Large Forests". In these "Forests" we have large amounts of "Trees". Because we have so many of these "Trees", it is cheaper for lumber companies to harvest, and make "Lumber". This "Lumber" can be sold cheaply to countries where the lumber companies must pay high prices in order to harvest their small number of "Trees". Apparently this is unfair to the Bush administration. Hence we have ~30% tariffs on our lumber. But hey, our dollar is going up and theirs isn't so PBTBTBTBTBT :-Ãz

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by bnenning · · Score: 3, Insightful
      (and don't give me this Clinton set it up crap, the GOP was in office for 6 years before Clinton, and for 6 years the economy crap)


      Um, that doesn't parse at all. Perhaps you are referring to the minor recession in 1991, which ended well before Clinton took office? At any rate, although the economy appeared strong under Clinton, we now know this was due to massive corporate fraud and the unsustainable tech bubble. Yes, I'm sure it's the Republicans' fault somehow, but to blame Bush for the downturn requires believing that he's capable of time travel.


      my state -- along with the vast majority of the states -- are poor as hell now due to tax cuts that lead to a drastic cut in federal funding...


      Where do you think federal funding comes from? If your state needs money, it can raise it from its own taxpayers rather than having the federal government extort funds from taxpayers of other states. Or your state could try something wacky like cutting spending.


      Because getting laid is much more shameful than inciting a war that lead to the death of thousands of innocent people


      Considering Saddam was murdering many times more than that, the Iraqis are better off today. Look, I want to know what happened to the WMDs too, and if Bush did in fact mislead us then I'll be pissed. But remember that Clinton and many Democrats made exactly the same claims about Saddam's weapons programs. Were they also lying?

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    11. 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
    12. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by Hamstaus · · Score: 4, Informative

      duffbeer703, please put your hands up in the air. You are being arrested for the murder of Jimmy Hoffa.

      What's that? You didn't murder Jimmy Hoffa? Well, I don't need proof. I think you did. Tell you what, duffbeer703, I'm going to arrest you and execute you anyway. I know you did it, I just need a little more time to find the evidence. Would you prefer death by bunker buster, or M-16?

      What's that? You'd rather I had proof before I convicted you?

      That's just crazy talk.


      p.s. The CIA helped the Iraqis gas the Kurds. Not to mention the U.S. sold them the helicopters. See this report by a professor at Cornell, if your memory of history is a bit foggy.

      --
      I moderate "-1, Fool"
    13. Re:Yeah, this is Bush's version of "free trade" by Hamstaus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Along with the "Lumber", Canada also has more "Gold Mines". The real problem is that Bush is worried that Canada will produce Peasants faster than they can produce Peons, and they'll be able to do a grunt rush before the US can get their Ogres out.

      --
      I moderate "-1, Fool"
  4. Business as usual by SAN1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Business as usual by Tiro · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Demand free trade to 3rd world countries, close the internal market. Nothing to see here.
      Sure, but in this case, the Republic of Korea's development is entirely due to cash pumped in to the country through and after the Korean War [plus a ton of hard Korean labor, but the effort would have been futile without our cash].

      Korean chaebol developed with close ties to and huge amounts of funding from their government, so I wouldn't be surprised if the American allegations here are true.

      For my source and an understanding of this important country, see Bruce Cumings' brilliant and excellent Korea's Place in the Sun. My dear professor from this spring [who is a friend of Cumings] teaches the book, and my dear friend at the U. of Chicago has Cumings as his professor. He probably understands Korea as well as anyone outside that nation.

  5. 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 Dr.+Bent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh yeah right, typical Slashdot M.O.

      1) Blame America
      2) Read article*

      (*)This step is optional, and not recommended if trolling for karma.

      In the first sentence of the article, it says the tariff is in reponse to subsidies provided by the Korean government. The U.S. is re-balancing the field, and is more than entitled to impose a tariff on a subsidized product when it competes with products made in the U.S.

    4. Re:Well by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Interesting

      S Korea works like that though. all of their companies are diverse producers like GE is.

      the Government tells them what to build and they build it.

      government controled capitolism...a weird idea but it seems to work in most cases.

      the government does not mind itself with the running of the business like in communism, but if there is a product that they want built, they tell a company...normaly a well run one to build it.

      it is very efficent in many ways.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    5. Re:Well by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you been watching the news for the past 9 months? There's a fat rule book for them and a skinny rule book for us. If you bitch about it, we'll bomb your commie terrorist ass.

      -B

    6. Re:Well by 73939133 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because the South Korean government has repeatadly propped up a dying company that dumps product onto the market below cost?

      You mean, like the US is doing with steel, agriculture, airlines, and defense contractors?

      we can get rid of the last vestiges of this type of protectionism

      "Vestige"? This isn't a "vestige", it's worse than it has ever been.

      I think all nations should just drop the pretenses of "fairness" and "openness" and just assume that protectionism is a fact of life. Then, democratically elected governments can negotiate about it rationally and without all the bluster and lies, and without having the WTO interfere.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. Re:Well by altstadt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmmm. You weren't around the last time this happened were you?

      The main result of the last RAM tarrif was to throw all of North America into a deeper recession than it already was, and the economy at that time was in much better shape then than it is currently. Everybody else in the world got cheap RAM except the US and Canada. We got all that nice expensive RAM that was produced by the one company in the US that still manufactured it. As I recall, the one protected company still went tits up.

      I guess it will all work out better this time around. Computers and embedded systems are too cheap right now, we really should double the prices so that we can keep electronics out of the hands of consumers. Y'all might want to ask your parents about how the computer industry <sarcasm>surged</sarcasm> during the Regan years.

      If a foreign country wants use their citizen's tax dollars to support our computer consuming habits, let 'em I say.

    10. 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.
    11. Re:Well by sunny_talwar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As mentioned above: typical American M.O. (Sorry...not all...)

      1) Blame the world
      2) Blame ourselves*

      (*) This step is optional, and not recommended if you are collection BushPointsâ. The U.S. re-balances the field when it is threatened, but it is more than entitiled to practice protectionism of (said before) Agriculture, Forestry etc.

  6. 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.

  7. MTF by bazabba · · Score: 3, Informative
  8. Worst part is tariff goes directly to Micron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    as per US tariff trade law. Just the same way that US steel and lumber tariffs to US steel companies and US lumber companies respectively. Basically this means that the comsumer pays for the inefficiency of these firms, and those same inefficient firms get rewarded for their lack of productivity. Wacky system. Let he with the most lobbying money win.

  9. Tariffs are wrong... by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see that the U.S. government is continuing it's slide into the corporate welfare government. Corporations don't need welfare and protection. If they can't compete, get the fuck out or find a new business plan.

    Maybe that means that Micron needs put a plant in Korea or something. I don't know. But as a consumer I want the lower prices, it makes me want to go and buy more memory. I don't see my government acting in my favor here.

    sri

    1. Re:Tariffs are wrong... by tealover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So then you don't have problems with flooding the market with undervalued products to eliminate competitors.

      Microsoft will be glad to know the Open Source community has come around to its way of thinking.

      Thanks.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  10. 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!

  11. Re:Extreme by jonr · · Score: 4, Funny

    What? I am missing some hot chicks because I use Mozilla? WTF is happening? How about posting a image url? :Ãz

  12. 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?

  13. Took a while to arrive by red_dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    This tariff has been in the air for Hynix for a few months now. They're getting it easier than originally proposed: the tariff was originally 57%. Also, the US is not the only one sticking it to the Koreans: the European Commission smacked them with a 37% duty too.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  14. Re:Extreme by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You know, this got me thinking: Linux evangelists should not be lobbying non-US governments to adopt Linux. There is much more evidence of Microsoft impropriety than there is in the case of Korean SDRAM. So if Bush can levy a 44% tariff, all the governments in the world should impose a 50% tariff on Microsoft products. They could do useful things with that money.

    Just like we tax polluting fuels to encourage alternatives, this would have a very positive effect on "alternative" operating systems.

  15. 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...

  16. 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 Red+Meanie · · Score: 3, Informative
      Problem is, the forest companies weren't being subsidized. The US gov't just decided that stumpage rates weren't high enough (they were already higher than comparative american rates though)

      Ironically, as a result, the forest companies had to ramp up production to get the costs down. This caused even more Canadian wood to flood into the US marketplace.

      BTW, The WTO made their preliminary ruling a couple weeks ago. The US actions violated WTO treaties...

    2. 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
    3. Re:Just like Canadian Softwood. by 1010011010 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The South Koreans will not win, because they are the ones giving the illegal subsidy to Hynix. Did you read the article? Or is it easier to jsut assume the U.S. is wrong? I admit, it is a time-saver.

      Do you have any opinions on the tarriffs the E.U. applied to Hynix?

      --
      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. Mostly good by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although this will result in somewhat higher prices in the short term it should result in the long term viability of the market. Hynix has been illegally propped up by their government many times and their ability to sell products below cost just weakens the entire sector. Add to that the fact that the union blackmailed the company into not accepting a takeover bid from a company that might have actually turned em around and I doubt that the WTO will do much to the Americans.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  18. 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 ...

  19. Lower dollar good for US companies... by Goonie · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The USD is way, way, way, overvalued, because of the huge capital inflows to the US, thus making American exporters uncompetitive and American manufacturers in the domestic market uncompetitive with imports. Falls in the US dollar will help restore balance to the US economy. It might be a little hard on US consumers as imported goods get more expensive, but a stimulated US economy is a good thing for the US and indeed the world.

    Unless you intend travelling overseas in the near future (and that puts you in a minority of Americans) you should be putting your (American-made) party hats on and celebrating this end to an imbalanced economy.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  20. Perhaps this 44% will offset a tiny part by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    of the 190 billion in subsidies the American Government will be passing out to farmers over the next ten years.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Perhaps this 44% will offset a tiny part by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Funny

      We subsidse our farmers because imported milk tends to taste funny...

  21. Re:North Korea? by Bonker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Korea makes a huge amount of different kind of embedded electronics. For example, they export a huge number of the ATMs in use in the United States. If I remember correctly (and I may not) Chung Ho electronics makes a big perecentage of them. Glory brand ATMs are also manufactured in Korea, IIRC.

    You *will* be screwed by this ruling, regardless of where you live. Prices for various electronics will be going up.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  22. 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.
  23. Hey, great... this worked so well the last time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From Cringely's "Accidental Empires":

    In 1975, Japan's Ministry for International Trade and Industry had organized JApan's leading chip makers into two groups-- NEC-Toshiba and Fujitsu-Hitachi-Mitsubishi-- to challenge the United States for the 64K DRAM business. They won. By 1985, these two groups has 90 percent of the U.S. market for DRAMs. American companies like Intel, which had started out in the DRAM business, quit making the chips because they weren't profitable, cutting world DRAM production capacity as they retired. To make matters worse, the United States Department of Commerce accused the Asian DRAM makers of dumping-- selling their memory chips in America at less than it cost to produce them. The Japanese companies cut a deal with the United States government that restricted their DRAM distribution in America-- at a time when we had no other reliable DRAM sources. Big mistake. Memory supplies dropped just as memory demand rose [OS/2 had created a need for RAM] , and the classic supply-demand effect was an increase in DRAM prices, which more than doubled in a few months. Toshiba, which was nearly the only company making 1 megabit DRAM chips for a while, earned more than $1 billion in profits on its DRAM business in 1989, in large part because of the United States government.

  24. This is another example of freedom and democracy by confused+philosopher · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually it is an example of pig headedness. If the US market breeds unfair competition, then it should rethink its business model instead of imposing large and/or illegal tarrifs.

    Did you know that the US thinks the Canadian Wheat Board subsidized farmers off the books, to sink American farmers, and so Canadian farmers are being unfairly abused by the American market.

    Or how about the illegal [as the WTO ruled] tarrif on Softwood lumber?

    Or how about the Mad Cow related Canadian beef ban, when the cow has ties to Montana, USA?

    Double standard? You bet.

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
  25. In Other News... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hynix announces high volume trade agreement with major EU computer retail chains. Maybe. If the US doesn't want cheap good stuff, other countries will be happy to take it.

    This sort of carry-on is why many countries no longer give a toss about "free trade" agreements with the US - they're not worth the paper they're written on if the gubment feels so inclined.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  26. Re:North Korea? by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

    Which begs the question, if I go to Canada and buy said electronics, what do I have to do to bring them back to the US (legally)?

  27. Gee where have I heard this before by whitecanuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Candaian living by our forest industry region this sounds exactly like the crap the americans gave us on our softwood.

    --
    I never realized how bad net porn was till I broke my arm
  28. 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.

  29. Turnabout... by Orne · · Score: 4, Informative
    I refer you to a United States Office of Trade Representative on the trade balance for Korea in 2000, outlining what tariffs are in effect for Korea. Some examples:
    - "In 2000, Korea was the United Statesâ(TM) sixth largest export market. In 2000, two-way merchandise trade between the United States and Korea reached record levels, totaling $68.2 billion, compared with $54.3 billion for 1999."
    - 8% tariff on US automobile imports into Korea
    - 317% import tariff on US potato products

    From the ZDNet article, "Semiconductors are South Korea's biggest export and generated $16.6 bn in overseas sales in 2002. DRAM exports represent 35 percent of total semiconductor exports."

    From a CIA report, South Korea's total exports for 2002 was $159.2 billion.

    This implies that ~10% of the Korean economy is in semiconductor sales alone. Recall that recently South Korea is warming up to North Korea, and if we add that Pres. Bush has already put North Korea on notice regarding their weapon exports, we should not be surpised that the government would penalize the friend of your enemy.

    My personal beliefs are that that tariffs are bad on both imports and exports, but after reading the report on how much Korea taxes US exports, I don't pity them.


    Interestingly enough, "In spring 2000, Korea was elevated to the Special 301 "priority watch list" as a result of continuing concerns regarding inadequate IPR enforcement, lack of protection for clinical drug test data, lack of full retroactive protection for pre-existing copyrighted works and pharmaceutical patents, problematic amendments to Koreaâ(TM)s Copyright Act and Computer Program Protection Act, lack of coordination between Korean health and IPR authorities on drug product approvals for marketing, and continued counterfeiting of consumer products."

  30. 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?

  31. No gain without pain by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's good for the steel manufacturers (high tarriffs on foreign steel imports) isn't good for steel consumers.

    Why should construction companies, etc have to pay an artificially inflated price for a vital commodity? Why should a shipyard on either coast have to support a steel mill in the Midwest?

    What you forget is that by making the US steel manufacturers more competitive, you're making US steel consumers less competitive. Overnight, these steel tarriffs have made it harder for US shipbuilders to compete in the global market. The same is true of other industries too.

    So, in essence, Dubya is robbing Peter to pay Paul in the hope that he can secure Paul's vote in the future and that Peter won't notice.

    Yay for free trade!

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  32. Vietnamese 'basa' IS a kind of Catfish... by andrewski · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You don't see the FDA slamming down on southern producers who label Bullfish as Catsish, why would we unfairly require the vietnamese to make a distinction between their not-quite catfish and our not-quite catfish?

  33. How to respond to a troll by Qrlx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    Hmmm. Let's outlaw the U.S. Post Office then. Seriously, does this bit of extremism apply to U.S. companies that aren't turning a profit, and competing with other U.S. companies? Or just foreign companies?

    For that matter, what makes a U.S. company a U.S. company? Most of the big corps are technically out of The Bahamas or similar countries who've found a nice little niche by shielding companies from the tax men of the countries in which they do business.

    I'm no economist, but I think it's pretty obvious that whatever governmental assistance Seoul provides Hynix is pretty much being met tit-for-tat, and then some, with this tarriff. Not surprising that Washington would choose this tactic, though, since they've already imposed tarriffs on Canadian lumber and European steel. While these tarriffs certainly protect American jobs, a cynical view is that the imposition of these tarriffs is not so much about protecting our economy, it's more about protecting electoral votes in Pennsylvania. Though that argument doesn't make a lot of sense when applied to Washington timber. It does make sense in Micron's home state(s) of Idaho (and Virgina, after acquisition of Toshiba's facilities there).

    Political cynicism aside, one thing I did learn (Bueller? Bueller?) is that the Hawley-Smoot Tarriff Act was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and led to the Great Depression. Is saving the White House worth a repeat of that?

    Finally, you end with the statement "It's hard enough dealing with domestic competitors..." Which domestic competitors are you talking about? Who else makes DRAM in the USA? I was under the impression that Micron was it.

    To sum up: I guess we should go ahead and slap a huge tarriff on Airbus as well! Because surely the American consumer will benefit when Boeing, protected by exorbitant tarriffs, can charge the airlines whatever they please for a new 737.

  34. 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
  35. The last sentence doesn't make sense by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Funny

    The South Koreans plan to appeal to the World Trade Organisation.

    Ummm ... so?! Last time I checked, America, for better or worse, does whatever the hell it damn well pleases. We didn't need NATO's permission to go bomb the crap out of Iraq, and we sure as hell don't need the WTO's permission to levy tariffs on U.S. imports!!!

  36. The Broken Window Fallacy by z4ce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see so many people here falling into the contra-positive of the broken window fallacy it is scaring me.

    There is a shop with a store front window. A vandal comes by and throws a rock right through the window. At first the store owner is disstressed about this. However, he then realizes even though he has to pay for a new window and installer. The window guy will in turn hire a plumber, who will buy a sandwich, the chef will buy a microwave, the consumer electronics guy will buy something from his shop. It will be great for everyone. Accordingly, he decides we need more vandals to make the world a better place. You heard a lot of this weak argument during 9/11. Although, 9/11 is more complex since it involved huge sums of insurance money, reinsurers, etc.

    What is wrong with this argument? Well, the answer is simple the store owner would have spent his money on something else beside the window. While the window guy is certainly happy, the refridgerator guy is now seriously bumming that he didn't get a sale. Or let's say he bought the window instead of shoes, the shoe guy would be bumming.

    Now I have seen several people arguing the South Korean government subsidizing memory is bad for the United States. This the broken window fallacy in REVERSE. When someone gives you something it is a net positive. It's better than if you had made it yourself. You now have money you can spend on other things. While it might be hard for micron its GOOD for computer users. They will have more money to spend on new nVidia GeForce 5800FX Ultra Deluxe Turbo Gold Millenium Edition cards or whatever.

    Remember, other peoples governments giving us money (even in the form of memory) is a good thing for our economy. Don't be led into this fallacy that its more important to keep our money "internal." The greedy strategy tends yield an amazingly near optimal solution. Government intervention will always lead something ineffecient taking place.

    Yes, there is the case where there could be a strategic move to lower prices to force out a competitor and in the long term raise prices. However, this market has way too many firms for any one firm to gain that kind of control.

    I would much rather have more money rather than letting the U.S. government and Micron have it. As a side note, luckily they didn't implement quotas which would have just given Hynix the ability to sell at a higher price...

    1. Re:The Broken Window Fallacy by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remember, other peoples governments giving us money (even in the form of memory) is a good thing for our economy. Don't be led into this fallacy that its more important to keep our money "internal." The greedy strategy tends yield an amazingly near optimal solution. Government intervention will always lead something ineffecient taking place.

      This is a flawed argument. The idea isn't to keep the money internal; the idea is to maintain the stability of the businesses involved.

      In a typical free market situation, you have different companies vying against eachother for a slice of the same pie. Their products may not be completely identical, but the idea is that the best ideas, the best products, the best business plans, will eventually win out.

      Now in this instance, we have a business which is close to collapse. So what happens if, on the way out, Hynix temporarily becomes the primary seller of DRAM chips on the market? Let's say that the products of this company and Micron are similar enough, and everyone switches to Hynix chips. Assume Hynix really is going to collapse; what happens to Micron?

      First, they reduce costs, trying to compete. Then, when they find they can't attract the demand, they shut down production lines, sell plants. If things get far enough along, they may have to start pulling funding for R&D, which will hurt them even more later on. It could take them years to retool, to recover, to refinance their R&D divisions, after such problems.

      Now what happens to everyone else, if Hynix collapses? Companies that rely on a steady flow of parts could be ruined by this, as they suddenly have nowhere to turn to for the pieces they need. They may find parts at a higher price, but that will still raise their costs, making it difficult to compete. Possibly even against themselves, if a large quantity of a previous version of their product is already out there, and was cheaper prior.

      Now I'm not saying they're at this stage right now, and I'm not saying they're necessarily even headed for this stage. Micron seems like they're a pretty popular, thriving company at the moment. But depending on how long South Korea keeps Hynix on life support, they could last just long enough to really screw things up for several companies. With Hynix hanging on, newcomers will have a hard time getting a foothold in the market, as Hynix's chips stay at an artificially low price.

      Getting back to your statement, I don't think that the government being involved in something necessitates that it become inefficient. In fact, I think it's rather important to have the government involved in all major business decisions, especially those involving monopolies or companies in near-monopoly positions. Without the government, companies would become "too" efficient, and I'm convinced that most would just start sucking money directly out of our bank accounts, given the opportunity. It is, after all, the most efficient business model you'll ever see.

  37. 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!
  38. background to the dispute by odin53 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not that I support the tariff, but it seems like slashdotters don't know the whole story, so let me explain.

    Hynix, for the last few years, has been losing a LOT of money, mostly due to the commoditization of DRAM and general Asian economic malaise. A couple years ago, Micron offered to buy Hynix. Hynix refused and instead kept taking out loans and otherwise attempted to stay afloat. (Hynix was bailed out a couple times after the first proposal. Some of these loans were from government owned banks; also, apparently, Hynix received some direct subsidies from the Korean government.)

    Last year, though, Hynix's bad fortune came to a head, and the company was on the verge of collapse. Micron again offered to buy Hynix, and after extensive negotiations, it seemed like the merger would go through. But for some inexplicable reason, at the last minute Hynix refused the offer, claiming it wasn't high enough. (I say inexplicable because there were no other buyers or potential buyers and Hynix was ridiculously deeply indebted -- in this situation (i.e., close to bankruptcy with a viable way out), refusing to merge was almost probably (at least in America) not in the best interests of its shareholders.) Some creditors tried to band together and force Hynix to sell itself (after the two bailouts, creditors were the biggest shareholders) but that didn't pan out.

    As Hynix's debt grew and grew and its financial state deteriorated (even after two huge bailouts) everyone knew that Hynix needed to get acquired -- even the government encouraged it. However, Korean politicians, civic groups and industry leaders outwardly opposed Hynix's acquisition by a foreign company; they wanted to figure out a way to keep Hynix Korean. From what I remember, a few months ago Hynix went through a restructuring/recapitalization and got some debt relief, but its financial prospects haven't improved.

    Hynix's survival is very, very strange given its circumstances, except when you realize that its survival is only due to tremendous political pressure to keep the company alive for a Korean acquirer. Otherwise, I think that financial analysts have uniformly agreed that Hynix needs to get acquired by somebody.

    For better or for worse, Micron had a strong argument. Hynix should probably not be independent right now, and is only so because of the direct (and indirect) help of the Korean government. Also, the overall effect has been really bad: Hynix's non-creditor shareholders have been screwed repeatedly in the bailouts (convertible debt is great for creditors, horrible for current shareholders); Korean government-owned banks have arguably wasted insane amounts of money by riskily throwing it Hynix; and now, prices for DRAM will artificially go up because of the tariffs.

  39. Dear Taxpayers of South Korea: by timothy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Drat -- someone caught onto our scheme! I regret that our business arrangment has come to an end, because I was looking for more of your money to subsidize my continuing purchases of Korean memory products.

    We both know that long-term, your largesse has one obvious effect, long-term: namely, that your money creates some great bargains for purchasers of specially-supported companies' products.

    It was fun while it lasted, though. If you care to subsidize any other products, I hope you will especially consider paying for part of my next LCD panel; they're still more expensive than I would like, and it would be nice if you could chip in a few bucks.

    Thanks in advance,

    timothy

    p.s. In regards to our prior correspondence: maybe I wasn't clear. No, I actually don't care to artificially prop up any domestic businesses to achieve some sort of artificial parity in price or export numbers. I'll consider it, but it seems pretty irrational, except on the part of the subsidized business.

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  40. Re:You mean good for Bush, this isnt good for us. by HanzoSan · · Score: 4, Interesting



    Well no you are right, all the jobs should be kept here.

    I'm bitching at the President because hes the leader of the free world and hes not doing shit. Hes not doing anything at all to improve this economy, he has done absolutely NOTHING thats why I bitch.

    Until he produces results, I'm going to be pissed, oh and wheres Bin Laden, wheres Saddam? Wheres the weapons of mass destruction? Why arent our borders secure?

    Oh and Bush is currently being investigated, for all we know the whole Iraq war could have been one big hoax.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  41. $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
  42. 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

  43. I'm not a potato farmer by tuxathon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in Boise, ID, headquarters of Micron Technology. Micron is the the largest private employer in Boise (and Idaho, for that matter), so criticizing the company is often risky business considering all the company loyals in town, as well as the clout they hold on local leaders. There has been almost no direct negative press about MU in the local newpapers or media.

    In January, Micron CEO Steve Appleton held a press conference and announced a "product misstep" was to blame for several quarters of steep losses. This "misstep" is Micron's leapfrog to DDR400, which essentially left them out of the hot market for all of 2002. This press conference was covered lightly, and the media certainly didn't dwell on it this revelation.

    By March, nearly everybody had forgotten about Appleton's admission of "misstep"ing the company into perpetual quarterly losses, and decided to go on the spin campaign. Another press conference was called to announce the company's losses were the fault of subsidized Korean chip maker Hynix. This time, every media outlet in driving distance was notified. U.S. Senator Mike Crapo was on hand to lend his support for the home-town corporation and blast the Korean government for propping up Hynix and running Micron into the ground. This story ran for several days in the local media.

    Appleton masterfully deflected earnings shortcomings from himself to the Koreans, and at the same time positioned Micron to be the beneficiary of "emergency" protection from the the US International Trade Commision, the body who deals with trade complaints from US companies. Interestingly, according to US trade law, it is not necessary for the ITC to have conclusive evidence of dumping/subsidies/etc to grant short-term protective tariffs. They need only have proof that there may be "unfair" trade practices taking place. In addition, the ITC may levy countervailing duties against foreign offenders if a company is harned, or may be harmed, by fair and legal trade .

    As with most protection, the consumer ends up footing the bill. The greatly inceased duty on Korean chips will drive up the price in the DRAM market and force US consumers to pay artifically high prices. Meanwhile, Micron recovers and Appleton saves face. These duties are NOT about Korean subsidies, they are about Micron trade protection wrapped in an All-American, patriotic, apple-pie-loving shell.

    Just remember who's paying for the "product misstep": YOU!!!

  44. Blatantly wrong... by danro · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you google around a bit, you'll find that chemical weapons are pretty hard to destroy and require very large incinerators that would easily be spotted by satelliete.

    This is totally and utterly wrong. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, son...

    When I did my military service we were trained in destroying chemical weapons.
    They are pretty reactive (otherwise they would be lousy weapons), and can easily be neutralized by ordinary household cleaning products, or gasoline (Iraq certainly had no shortage of that one...).
    I have personally tried this with both sarin (a nerve-agent) and mustard-gas, and were told it would work on other substances, like Fosgen or VX too.

    Most chemical weapons also decay with time (very reactive, remember) and thus proving that Iraq had working nerv-agents a decade ago doesn't prove they had it now since their proven 1993 weapons would be unsable by now.

    Chemical weapons are horrible, but you don't have to believe all the FUD and propaganda surrounding them.

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  45. No, YOU are wrong by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like there is anything steel-specific in this...

    All industries face that kind of price competition when they cease to innovate significantly. Decades ago, cloths, steel, shipyards, cars etc... became commodities and their production was gradually transferred to emerging countries. This is a Good Thing (TM) as it both lowers the price of standard products in developped countries while stifling growth and wealth in emerging countries.

    The only solution for western producers is to continually innovate to support a superior price. Nowadays, nobody still produces cloth in developped countries except for high quality, high tech speciality stuff. The western car industry suffered tremendously in the 70's when the technology became mundane enough for Korea to mass-produce cars cheaply. The western industry reacted by a massive rightsizing, innovation (ABS, air-bags...), superior development process, better design and good marketing.

    The steel industry is no different. The world's largest steel producer is Arcelor, an French-Belgian conglomerate. They have outsourced standard production to emerging countries and have developped high value added products (flat steels) that justify a double or triple price. And believe me, with all their taxes and social contributions, labor costs in France or Belgium are not cheaper than in the US.

    Cost dumping will always exist. It drives costs down, stimulates innovation and allows third world development if managed correctly. Tariffs are a short-sighted answer. They delay the inevitable while artificially maintaining high prices and inefficient businesses.

    --

    It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
  46. Good article - "Enslaved by free trade" by Craggles · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you are a subscriber to the excellent magazine "New Scientist", they have a great opinion article about this.

    The US is certainly very good at hypocrisy, I suppose that comes with diversity and arrogance ;)

    Here is an excerpt :-
    THE founding myth of the dominant nations is that they achieved their industrial and technological superiority through free trade. Nations that are poor today are told that if they want to follow our path to riches they must open their economies to foreign competition. They are being conned. Almost every rich nation has industrialised with the help of one of two mechanisms now prohibited by the rules of global trade. The first is "infant industry protection": defending new industries from foreign competition until they are big enough to compete on equal terms. The second is the theft of intellectual property. History suggests that technological development may be impossible without one or both.

    It seems the US and Britain were quite ruthless in their "infant industry protection".

    Shame the article is locked up in the closed New Scientist archive. Great resource, well worth the subscription cost.

    1. Re:Good article - "Enslaved by free trade" by TheSync · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, every poor country that has become developed (mainly the "Asian Tigers") have done so to a large extent through the use of trade to leverage their economies.

      So while these countries certainly engaged in government-lead industrial policy, without being able to trade with other countries (especially the US), they would still be poor today.

      Moreover, it is looking like once countries achieve a certain level of development, government-lead industrial policy begins to fail them. Korea and Japan came a long way, but are now stagnating and trying to reform into more fully free-market economies, but the siren song of protectionism keeps them from moving forward.

      Meanwhile, I can assure you there is no benefit to the US limiting trade with anyone. If they want to sell us cheap DRAM, damn, let's buy it up!