Every once in a while I get asked what I studied in university. I
\nreply, somewhat sheepishly that I studied the “Political Economy of
\nGlobalization”, which usually elicits blinks and incomprehension. What
\ndoes that mean? Here’s how university warped my mind:<\/i>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nThere has been talk that the 2002 steel tariffs have \nIn 2002 The \nBush’s promises to protect steel workers during the 2000 campaign are \nThe steel consuming industries, of course, would get smacked by the ~40% Industries Trade Action Coalition<\/p>\n <\/a> (CITAC) estimated that 200,000 jobs Small business tip of the day: Don’t Back in April, Bush visited Timken Co. in Canton, Ohio, to promote his \nSteel producers, for their part, say that the tariffs (and new investment) \nThe tariffs “didn’t win the [United Steelworkers of America] over, and he \nOf course, in the Age of Globalization no nation works in a vacuum. Few \nSuppose the President was savvy enough to international institutions \nThe countries involved in the complaint included the European Union, \nThere are a number of reports from the UK that politically So that’s the Atlantic: politically targeted retaliatory tariffs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \nIn South America, Brazil is the powerhouse needed on board before the \nChina? China will be slow to move, in my opinion, because the tariffs \nChina’s new to this WTO thing (this was their first complaint), but they \nIf you were China, what industry would you want to protect with higher \nYou know, this is all really poor performance for a “Free Trade” \nOh yeah. Here’s a big “Thank You”, Mr. Blair:<\/p>\n \nThe Bush administration has instructed American multinational companies to \nI dunno, Brad. They did<\/i> think the steel tariff was a good idea…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Every once in a while I get asked what I studied in university. I reply, somewhat sheepishly that I studied the “Political Economy of Globalization”, which usually elicits blinks and incomprehension. What does that mean? Here’s how university warped my mind: There has been talk that the 2002 steel tariffs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"webmentions_disabled_pings":false,"webmentions_disabled":false,"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":3,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[218],"tags":[17],"class_list":["post-126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1942,"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126\/revisions\/1942"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opendna.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nbackfired<\/a> on Bush. Any sophomore econ student could have predicted
\nthe economic ramifications. Any sophomore polisci student could have
\npredicted the WTO ruling. But things are spiraling out of control.
\nNumbers in bold parentheses are electoral
\nvotes<\/a><\/i>.<\/p>\n
\nPhiladelphia Inquirer<\/a> evaluated Bush’s announcement of protectionist
\nsteel tariffs (HREF=”http:\/\/www.cnsnews.com\/ViewNation.asp?Page=Nationarchive200203NAT2002
\n0306a.html”>details<\/a>)
\nas an astute political move designed to seduce union voters in
\nPennsylvania (21)<\/strong>, West Virginia (5)<\/strong> and Ohio (20)<\/strong>.
\nThe tariff “could be bad news for Democrats”, the line went, as Bush was
\nattempting “to repeat the formula that worked for Richard Nixon (1972) and
\nRonald Reagan (1984) in their reelection efforts: Swipe enough union
\nvoters from the Democrats to ensure a landslide GOP victory.”<\/p>\n
\ncredited with his success in West Virginia and Ohio. The tariffs might
\nhelp him win Pennsylvania this time around (he lost it last time). Fine.
\nSo Bush wanted to buy some votes in some critical states. He pissed off
\nsome libertarian\/conservatives like Congressman Ron
\nPaul<\/a>, but they’d stick with him anyway. (Or so the logic goes.)<\/p>\n
\nprice shock. In February, the Consuming<\/p>\n
\nhad been lost by downstream manufacturers since the tariffs. California
\nled the field in job losses. Kicking Ass<\/a>
\nposted this on Sept 23rd:<\/p>\n
\ninvite President Bush to speak at your small business.<\/p>\n
\n“Jobs and Growth” plan.
\nAs HREF=”http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/ac2\/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId
\n=A49361-2003Sep22¬Found=true”>Dana
\nMilbank reports<\/a> in today’s Washington Post (scroll down to the section
\nthat starts “BAD EXAMPLE”)… Timken, which manufactures steel bearings,
\nis lowering earnings forecasts and cutting 900 jobs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nresurrected 30,000 jobs. So says the HREF=”http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/ac2\/wp-dyn\/A31768-2003Sep18?language=printe
\nr”>Washington
\nPost<\/a>. Its sources admit that the numbers are probably inflated on all
\nsides (only 15,000 to 20,000 steel consumer jobs lost) but…<\/p>\n
\nsure as hell didn’t win the users over, and there are a hell of lot more
\nof us.” (Jim Zawacki, G.R. Spring & Stamping, Inc of MI) In fact, the
\ntariffs have played out very poorly in politically strategic states like
\nMichigan (17)<\/strong>, Tennessee (11)<\/strong>, Illinois (21)<\/strong>.
\n(California, I think we can assume, was always a lost cause.) This comes
\nfrom the HREF=”http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/ac2\/wp-dyn\/A31768-2003Sep18?language=printe
\nr”>Washington
\nPost<\/a> which also gives us this GOP-operative gem: “The only reason they
\nwon’t do it is if they’re unwilling to admit they made a mistake.”<\/p>\n
\ncountries can raise tariffs without being dragged to the global trade
\ncourt: the WTO<\/a>. The court
\nhas ruled, and it bitchslapped The President to the tune of more than $2.2
\nbillion and gave him until December to make amends. So says the Wall
\nStreet Journal. (kudos
\nDeLong<\/a>)<\/p>\n
\n(which he is known for defying) to expect the WTO to rule against the
\ntariffs (as suggested by some of DeLong’s commentors). That’s great, and I
\ncelebrate it as a deft political move. How’s he going to explain that he’s
\nchanging policy because one of the vilified international institutions has
\nordered him to? Nevermind that, we’re talking about global ramifications
\nnow.<\/p>\n
\nJapan, South Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil.<\/p>\n
\ntargeted sanctions<\/a> are pending against the United States. Stephen
\nByers, a inner-circle Blair supporter, has been pushing the EU’s top trade
\nnegotiator, Pascal Lamy, to impose tariffs against:<\/p>\n\n
\n[Florida (27)<\/strong>]<\/li>\n
\n(10)<\/strong>]<\/li>\n
\nequipment [Iowa (7)<\/strong><\/li>\n
\nFTAA. Forget about it. CAFTA? Please.<\/i><\/p>\n
\nappear to be increasing the investment in steel consumer industries (as US
\nsteel users move to China in search of cheap steel). I’m doubtful the
\nChinese are democratically savvy enough to pull a move like the EU.
\nBesides, The Administration has given an even broader opportunity by
\ndeciding to impose quotas on Chinese textiles. (the NY Times HREF=”http:\/\/atrios.blogspot.com\/2003_11_16_atrios_archive.html#106919702059877
\n487”>via
\nAtrios<\/a>)<\/p>\n
\ncan see it as easily as we can: If the EU raises tariffs on US textiles
\nthen Chinese textiles can swallow up US export markets. Don’t. Touch.<\/p>\n
\nprices? Electronics? Agriculture? I dunno, but I suspect if they can
\nprotect their currency policies, they will.<\/p>\n
\nPresident.<\/p>\n
\n
\npack
\nup shop in Britain<\/a> and to relocate jobs to America. This
\nIs London<\/a> reports that the Confederation of British Industry’s
\ndirector-general, Digby Jones, told members at this year’s annual
\nconference that “Three chief executives of American companies investing in
\nBritain have told me to my face that they have been told to close down,
\nbring their stuff home and make it in the US.” In Brad DeLong’s words,
\n“even [the Administration] wouldn’t do something as stupid and
\ncounterproductive as this. Would they?” (kudos HREF=”http:\/\/www.atrios.blogspot.com\/2003_11_16_atrios_archive.html#10691016195
\n5858984”>Atrios<\/a><\/p>\n