Obama hits China with trade complaint

[jaxx]

Obama hits China with trade complaint
By Charles Riley @CNNMoney September 17, 2012: 11:09 AM ET

HONG KONG (CNNMoney) -- The Obama administration filed a complaint Monday with the World Trade Organization, alleging that China has illegally subsidized automotive exports and undercut American suppliers.

The complaint accuses China of providing $1 billion in illegal subsidies to auto and auto parts exporters between 2009 and 2011, according to a senior administration official.

<..> In a related case filed in July, the administration launched a complaint against China with the WTO over $3 billion in duties Beijing placed on U.S. auto exports.

<..> However, the Obama administration can point to some victories regarding China. This includes getting Beijing to let its currency, the yuan, rise in comparison to other currencies, rather than keeping it pegged to the dollar.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/17/news/eco...index.html

Willard won't be happy.

[jaxx]

Once calling it “bad for the nation,” Romney now wants tougher policies toward China

February 16, 2012

<..> March 2010: Two years ago, President Obama imposed tariffs on Chinese tires in order to enforce trade agreements and promote economic growth in the U.S. In his book “No Apology,” Romney wrote that “President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics,” but that “it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.”

August 2011: A year later, Romney’s financial advisers in charge of his blind trusts shed his Chinese holdings after Romney made “confronting China” on trade a priority. His investments in Chinese enterprises were worth as much as $1.5 million before his advisers dumped them to assure his financial portfolio reflected his new-found political beliefs.

September 2011: Romney then released a new economic plan that proposed pushing for tougher trade sanctions on China.

Romney’s policy shifts only illustrate that, far from standing firm on principles, he’ll simply say whatever it takes to get elected.

http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/en...es-toward/

[pappy]

(09-17-2012 10:44 AM)jaxx Wrote:  <..>

“it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.”

When I worked in manufacturing I can assure you that my productivity and that of my coworkers was never stifled by protectionist tariffs, on way or the other.

For someone in Romney's shoes productivity is best measured as units produced per dollar of labor cost. To the worker however productivity becomes a simpler equation. How many units can I produce in a day. Will making more units increase my bottom line? where this comes in conflict is that I want to increase my financial position by increasing my pay based on the value of my productivity while the Romney's of the world benefit by forcing more value out of me than they are willing to fairly compensate.

When I see how much productivity in America has gone up I do not see it as a necessarily good thing for workers. Look at the chart of the wealth gap and you see wage earning middle class workers incomes as flat while the incomes of the top people that live off the value produced rising rapidly. The productivity increase came because the wage rates remained flat while the value of that production rose rapidly and that benefited the Romney class.

Protectionist policy helps level that playing field.

[sandnsea]

(09-17-2012 12:16 PM)pappy Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 10:44 AM)jaxx Wrote:  <..>

“it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.”

When I worked in manufacturing I can assure you that my productivity and that of my coworkers was never stifled by protectionist tariffs, on way or the other.

For someone in Romney's shoes productivity is best measured as units produced per dollar of labor cost. To the worker however productivity becomes a simpler equation. How many units can I produce in a day. Will making more units increase my bottom line? where this comes in conflict is that I want to increase my financial position by increasing my pay based on the value of my productivity while the Romney's of the world benefit by forcing more value out of me than they are willing to fairly compensate.

When I see how much productivity in America has gone up I do not see it as a necessarily good thing for workers. Look at the chart of the wealth gap and you see wage earning middle class workers incomes as flat while the incomes of the top people that live off the value produced rising rapidly. The productivity increase came because the wage rates remained flat while the value of that production rose rapidly and that benefited the Romney class.

Protectionist policy helps level that playing field.

I think it sort of depends on the protectionist policy. In any event, I think raising living standards for all workers, globally, is what eventually would provide the most benefit to the US worker. The standard for workers that business used to have to compete against, was the gold standard of living that unions brought us. Now businesses use $2 a day labor as the standard they force workers to compete with. Most workers don't seem to get it, I don't think a lot of union bosses even get it. They need to show US workers what our lives are going to be like if we keep going down this path.

[jaxx]

LABOLT: There's a Clear Choice for Voters on China

Published on Sep 17, 2012 by DNCClips

From MSNBC's NOW with Alex Wagner


Very good interview....Willard's past haunts him even though he lies about it.

[jaxx]

Willard never makes sense when it comes to how workers are affected.