"A report showing outsize portfolio gains for US senators is raising new questions about ethics and conflicts of interest for Capitol Hill power brokers.
The study found that during the boom years of 1993-98, a majority of US Senators were trading stocks - and beating the market by 12 percentage points a year on average. By comparison, corporate insiders beat the market by 5 percent, and typical households underperformed by 1.4 percent.
Financial experts interviewed for this story say the senators' collective achievement is a statistical stunner, too big to be a mere coincidence."
00001000010001010 Never underestimate what a politician will do to stay in power. That is something that those that support this massive movement of jobs have forgotten.
If we honored the laws of evolution you, since you appear to be from the UK, should be speaking German right about now becuase the US interfering in WWII .
Myths of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff by Roger Simmermaker July 12, 2001
To be able to accurately explain the affects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, it is necessary first to rid ourselves of popular myths so that we can start with a clean slate and derive conclusions from fact, rather than fantasy. I will list some common myths here, and then disprove them using facts according to history. The myths that prevail, even today, some 61 years after the tariff bill was signed by President Herbert Hoover, are as follows:
1.The Smoot-Hawley Tariff established the highest tariff rates in U.S. history, and the sharp rise in tariff rates caused countless nations to retaliate with tariffs of their own.
2. The Smoot Hawley-Tariff contributed to the instability of the stock market.
3. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was responsible for causing the Great Depression.
Campaigning against Herbert Hoover for the presidency in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt saw the tariff as a way to get a leg up on his Republican opponent's incumbent bid. Even Republicans eventually began to mischaracterize their party's former president in later years, as well as the tariff bill he signed into law in 1930. Even Ronald Reagan said "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff helped bring on the Great Depression." Someone should have told Ronnie that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was enacted over eight months after the Great Depression. Later, former President Reagan said "the Smoot-Hawley tariff...made it virtually impossible for anyone to sell anything in America...and spread the Great Depression around the world." Someone should have told Ronnie that over two-thirds of the goods imported into the United States entered duty-free, and that some nations actually increased exports to the United States after the Great Depression. Al Gore fell for the same politically correct lie as Reagan in 1993 in his debate with Ross Perot, claiming the tariff "was one of the principle causes...of the Great Depression." There was actually a higher percentage of imports on the duty free list in 1930 than there were after Ronald Reagan left office.
Even the Democrat party platform of 1928 proclaimed that tariffs were necessary to sustain "legitimate business and a high standard of wages for American labor." The platform also encouraged the equalization of the cost between production at home and abroad to "safeguard...the wage of the American laborer." Today, most Republicans and Democrats alike regard equalizing tariffs as extreme. Only the Reform Party considers it fair and common sense to treat our own producers equally with foreign competitors in the realm of U.S. trade policy.
The confidence Hoover expressed in high tariffs in his re-election bid was echoed throughout the campaign. If the word of the day was that high tariffs had caused the Great Depression, Hoover's stance would have obvious political suicide. Even FDR was unable to totally shake the call for high tariffs. On the campaign trail in October 1932, he proclaimed, "I favor continued protection for American agriculture as well as American industry." The creation of the myth that the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the Great Depression would have to wait.
Regardless of how one calculates tariff rates, as either a percentage of imports where tariffs are applied or as a percentage of all imports, duty-free or not, the Smoot-Hawley tariff did not have the highest rates in U.S. history. That claim belongs to the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, which caused neither a depression nor recession. With the belief that high tariffs cause depressions and hamper economic growth, one has to wonder why there wasn't a Great Depression of 1830? The reason is that there are several factors that cause recessions and depressions. Some of these causes will be discussed in this chapter, and revealing these factors will show that they were the cause of the Great Depression, not the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
In their attempts to vilify Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley for proposing such extre
Concerning the charge that nations enacted retaliatory tariffs against the United States for passing the Smoot-Hawley bill, historical documents do not support this view. Great Britain did not release any formal protests since it regarded the United States as a sovereign nation that did not look favorably upon other nations meddling in their affairs. Great Britain was also concerned that a formal protest might encourage still higher tariffs, which might work to the disadvantage of their exporters. Great Britain was one of Americas leading trading partners, and avoided any formal protest. Sir Esme Howard, the British Ambassador to Washington at the time, informed London that "official representations...against the proposed tariff increases...[would be] a mistake."
Foreign diplomats generally avoided specific threats of retaliation against the United States since any such language would be considered an infringement upon national sovereignty, and it was not the place of foreign governments to protest the Constitutionally enacted laws of the United States. Furthermore, the word "protest" during the time of the Great Depression did not automatically express dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policy. The word "protest" usually represented the argument that treaty rights of a foreign nation had been violated.
Canada briefly discussed retaliation in 1929 with U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg. Canada warned Kellogg that upwardly shifted tariff rates might result in a high probability for retaliation. Canadian Minister Vincent Massey was encouraged to release an official statement representing Canadas position, but none was ever written. Canada did not want to antagonize high tariff legislators in Congress. Instead, Massey decided to go a more discreet route via the American press. After meeting with the editor of the New York World, Massey was "impressed" by the position of the editor "that Canada will never be taken seriously by the United States...until she is prepared to strike back." This author supposes that a similar opinion is shared by the Chinese about the United States today. The United States repeatedly languishes over its huge trade deficit with China, but our market remains open to their goods while their market is virtually closed to ours. China will never take the United States seriously until we have the courage to take a stand, strike back, and apply higher tariffs on Chinese goods like the Chinese have applied to our goods!
Many nations of that time embraced the idea that retaliation would be counterproductive. They feared antagonizing Congress or a grass roots brushfire of national patriotism among U.S. citizens that might lead to discrimination of their imported goods. Historical records show that the Smoot-Hawley tariff did little to encourage foreign countries to retaliate with high tariffs of their own. In May 1931, the State Department report found that "by far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way." Data from the U.S. Commerce Department show that the reason for the severe drop in exports in almost every American export industry was because of economic problems related to the depression, not foreign retaliation for higher U.S. tariffs. Some U.S. exports, however, did see significant gains in foreign market share. Exports of apples, pears and grapefruits increased. Exports of prunes went up 31 percent, and exports of dried apricots soared higher by 72 percent. Exports of raw materials such as cotton and rayon held steady. Exports of American films increased 49 percent, and exports of false teeth rose 24 percent.
Please explain to my why people that support what some call 'free' trade see this issue as a binary issue. Their is a range of opinions between 100% openness and 100% closed.
If you want to buy the cheap products why don't you just move to India? People complain because they are losing their jobs and if I had to make the choice between a fellow American working or someone in another country, (assuming they could do the job) I would pick the American.
People forget that all those being fired and forced to talk lower paying jobs are people, not just numbers in a report.
When Ronald Reagan and the then current congress forced companies that sold autos in this country to build plants here if they wish to sell here, guess what? They built plants here. Why wound't that work now?
India and China practice what you so roundly criticize, so why don't you bitch about them doing it.
*******
US asks WTO to rule on China's chip tax By Tony Smith Posted: 19/03/2004 at 11:03 GMT The Register Mobile: Find out what the fuss is about. Take the two week trial today.
The US government has filed an official complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regarding the tax rebates China offers to its domestic chip makers
As reported yesterday, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick last week said of the tax rebates: "If they don't stop it, we're going to take action."
And that's just what the Bush administration has done. "US manufacturers of semiconductors and other products have a right to compete on a level playing field with Chinese firms," said Zoellick in an Associated Press report. "As a WTO member, China must live up to its WTO obligations."
In 2000, China imposed a 17 per cent sales tax on semiconductors. However, it permits local manufacturers to claim an 11 per cent rebate on the levy. If they design the chips as well as make them, they can claim a 14 per cent rebate. Neither tax break is open to overseas suppliers.
Such preferential treatment for local firms is a violation of WTO rules against discriminatory treatment, the US government claimed.
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the trade body representing US chipmakers, yesterday welcomed the government's move. It has been calling for some time for the US government to take the case to the WTO.
With the complaint filed, China and US trade representatives now have 60 days to negotiate a settlement. If talks prove unsuccessful, the case will come before a WTO panel. (R)
In the future, India and China will not need to sell to us. They can trade amongst themselves (and the rest of Asia) and, at the same time, rid themselves of the Sword of Dameclies that is the US Military. Because if we are broke, we will not be able to afford a military that can project force at near the same level we currently can.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay a large chunk of change to Customs...
Said old guy should not have been sending off others to kill for him.
Are you a Republican or A Democrat? (This question assumes you are an American, if you are not just ignore)
So, what is your opinion of the offshoring of US jobs?
Look at what those companies pay the C**'s. If they have enought money to pay tens of millions to their CEO's they have enough for R&D.
From the CSM
"A report showing outsize portfolio gains for US senators is raising new questions about ethics and conflicts of interest for Capitol Hill power brokers.
The study found that during the boom years of 1993-98, a majority of US Senators were trading stocks - and beating the market by 12 percentage points a year on average. By comparison, corporate insiders beat the market by 5 percent, and typical households underperformed by 1.4 percent.
Financial experts interviewed for this story say the senators' collective achievement is a statistical stunner, too big to be a mere coincidence."
00001000010001010
Never underestimate what a politician will do to stay in power. That is something that those that support this massive movement of jobs have forgotten.
Not everyone can start their own company. Where do you suggest that that can't work? Don't forget, they vote.
Then, in your opinion, what jobs should the offshored worker retrain to do?
Most politicians are lawyers. They will protect themselves.
You know, it's not that hard to buy the food yourself...
Well we kill several hundred thousand each year thru abortion so I don't think society would have trouble with a life saving op.
If we honored the laws of evolution you, since you appear to be from the UK, should be speaking German right about now becuase the US interfering in WWII .
Fuck off and die.
Yea, if fucking sucks when you are confonted by those that you think should have been killed before they became a burdon on society.
Fucking deal with it.
No. It isn't. If we as a society can not protect and do what is right for the weakest amongst us, then are we truely a civilized society?
How may I locate that law?
TIA.
Sleep is calling and I am afraid that I will be unable to resist much longer...
Myths of the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff
by Roger Simmermaker
July 12, 2001
To be able to accurately explain the affects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, it is necessary first to rid ourselves of popular myths so that we can start with a clean slate and derive conclusions from fact, rather than fantasy. I will list some common myths here, and then disprove them using facts according to history. The myths that prevail, even today, some 61 years after the tariff bill was signed by President Herbert Hoover, are as follows:
1.The Smoot-Hawley Tariff established the highest tariff rates in U.S. history, and the sharp rise in tariff rates caused countless nations to retaliate with tariffs of their own.
2. The Smoot Hawley-Tariff contributed to the instability of the stock market.
3. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was responsible for causing the Great Depression.
Campaigning against Herbert Hoover for the presidency in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt saw the tariff as a way to get a leg up on his Republican opponent's incumbent bid. Even Republicans eventually began to mischaracterize their party's former president in later years, as well as the tariff bill he signed into law in 1930. Even Ronald Reagan said "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff helped bring on the Great Depression." Someone should have told Ronnie that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was enacted over eight months after the Great Depression. Later, former President Reagan said "the Smoot-Hawley tariff...made it virtually impossible for anyone to sell anything in America...and spread the Great Depression around the world." Someone should have told Ronnie that over two-thirds of the goods imported into the United States entered duty-free, and that some nations actually increased exports to the United States after the Great Depression. Al Gore fell for the same politically correct lie as Reagan in 1993 in his debate with Ross Perot, claiming the tariff "was one of the principle causes...of the Great Depression." There was actually a higher percentage of imports on the duty free list in 1930 than there were after Ronald Reagan left office.
Even the Democrat party platform of 1928 proclaimed that tariffs were necessary to sustain "legitimate business and a high standard of wages for American labor." The platform also encouraged the equalization of the cost between production at home and abroad to "safeguard...the wage of the American laborer." Today, most Republicans and Democrats alike regard equalizing tariffs as extreme. Only the Reform Party considers it fair and common sense to treat our own producers equally with foreign competitors in the realm of U.S. trade policy.
The confidence Hoover expressed in high tariffs in his re-election bid was echoed throughout the campaign. If the word of the day was that high tariffs had caused the Great Depression, Hoover's stance would have obvious political suicide. Even FDR was unable to totally shake the call for high tariffs. On the campaign trail in October 1932, he proclaimed, "I favor continued protection for American agriculture as well as American industry." The creation of the myth that the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the Great Depression would have to wait.
Regardless of how one calculates tariff rates, as either a percentage of imports where tariffs are applied or as a percentage of all imports, duty-free or not, the Smoot-Hawley tariff did not have the highest rates in U.S. history. That claim belongs to the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, which caused neither a depression nor recession. With the belief that high tariffs cause depressions and hamper economic growth, one has to wonder why there wasn't a Great Depression of 1830? The reason is that there are several factors that cause recessions and depressions. Some of these causes will be discussed in this chapter, and revealing these factors will show that they were the cause of the Great Depression, not the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
In their attempts to vilify Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley for proposing such extre
Concerning the charge that nations enacted retaliatory tariffs against the United States for passing the Smoot-Hawley bill, historical documents do not support this view. Great Britain did not release any formal protests since it regarded the United States as a sovereign nation that did not look favorably upon other nations meddling in their affairs. Great Britain was also concerned that a formal protest might encourage still higher tariffs, which might work to the disadvantage of their exporters. Great Britain was one of Americas leading trading partners, and avoided any formal protest. Sir Esme Howard, the British Ambassador to Washington at the time, informed London that "official representations...against the proposed tariff increases...[would be] a mistake."
Foreign diplomats generally avoided specific threats of retaliation against the United States since any such language would be considered an infringement upon national sovereignty, and it was not the place of foreign governments to protest the Constitutionally enacted laws of the United States. Furthermore, the word "protest" during the time of the Great Depression did not automatically express dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policy. The word "protest" usually represented the argument that treaty rights of a foreign nation had been violated.
Canada briefly discussed retaliation in 1929 with U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg. Canada warned Kellogg that upwardly shifted tariff rates might result in a high probability for retaliation. Canadian Minister Vincent Massey was encouraged to release an official statement representing Canadas position, but none was ever written. Canada did not want to antagonize high tariff legislators in Congress. Instead, Massey decided to go a more discreet route via the American press. After meeting with the editor of the New York World, Massey was "impressed" by the position of the editor "that Canada will never be taken seriously by the United States...until she is prepared to strike back." This author supposes that a similar opinion is shared by the Chinese about the United States today. The United States repeatedly languishes over its huge trade deficit with China, but our market remains open to their goods while their market is virtually closed to ours. China will never take the United States seriously until we have the courage to take a stand, strike back, and apply higher tariffs on Chinese goods like the Chinese have applied to our goods!
Many nations of that time embraced the idea that retaliation would be counterproductive. They feared antagonizing Congress or a grass roots brushfire of national patriotism among U.S. citizens that might lead to discrimination of their imported goods. Historical records show that the Smoot-Hawley tariff did little to encourage foreign countries to retaliate with high tariffs of their own. In May 1931, the State Department report found that "by far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way." Data from the U.S. Commerce Department show that the reason for the severe drop in exports in almost every American export industry was because of economic problems related to the depression, not foreign retaliation for higher U.S. tariffs. Some U.S. exports, however, did see significant gains in foreign market share. Exports of apples, pears and grapefruits increased. Exports of prunes went up 31 percent, and exports of dried apricots soared higher by 72 percent. Exports of raw materials such as cotton and rayon held steady. Exports of American films increased 49 percent, and exports of false teeth rose 24 percent.
Where do you think the new job will come from and what field should displaced US workers retrain in?
China and India have much greater tarrifs on our imports then we have on theirs.
Hell, why don't we just pass a law that says that our trade policy with a country is the exact mirror image of their trade policy with us?
Please explain to my why people that support what some call 'free' trade see this issue as a binary issue. Their is a range of opinions between 100% openness and 100% closed.
Or am I wrong?
What products are cheeper and by how much?
If you want to buy the cheap products why don't you just move to India? People complain because they are losing their jobs and if I had to make the choice between a fellow American working or someone in another country, (assuming they could do the job) I would pick the American.
People forget that all those being fired and forced to talk lower paying jobs are people, not just numbers in a report.
When Ronald Reagan and the then current congress forced companies that sold autos in this country to build plants here if they wish to sell here, guess what? They built plants here. Why wound't that work now?
India and China practice what you so roundly criticize, so why don't you bitch about them doing it.
*******
US asks WTO to rule on China's chip tax
By Tony Smith
Posted: 19/03/2004 at 11:03 GMT
The Register Mobile: Find out what the fuss is about. Take the two week trial today.
The US government has filed an official complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regarding the tax rebates China offers to its domestic chip makers
As reported yesterday, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick last week said of the tax rebates: "If they don't stop it, we're going to take action."
And that's just what the Bush administration has done. "US manufacturers of semiconductors and other products have a right to compete on a level playing field with Chinese firms," said Zoellick in an Associated Press report. "As a WTO member, China must live up to its WTO obligations."
In 2000, China imposed a 17 per cent sales tax on semiconductors. However, it permits local manufacturers to claim an 11 per cent rebate on the levy. If they design the chips as well as make them, they can claim a 14 per cent rebate. Neither tax break is open to overseas suppliers.
Such preferential treatment for local firms is a violation of WTO rules against discriminatory treatment, the US government claimed.
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the trade body representing US chipmakers, yesterday welcomed the government's move. It has been calling for some time for the US government to take the case to the WTO.
With the complaint filed, China and US trade representatives now have 60 days to negotiate a settlement. If talks prove unsuccessful, the case will come before a WTO panel. (R)
In the future, India and China will not need to sell to us. They can trade amongst themselves (and the rest of Asia) and, at the same time, rid themselves of the Sword of Dameclies that is the US Military. Because if we are broke, we will not be able to afford a military that can project force at near the same level we currently can.
Since most of the world lives at a level FAR below the level of the US what leads you to believe that the US can keep it's standard of living intact?