Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What gives the President the authority to order Private Companies to buy US Products?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting article on this subject from a couple of days ago:

    Trump’s plan to require U.S. pipelines to be built with U.S. steel is clearly inconsistent with the national treatment obligation set out in Article III:4.

    “The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.”

    The plan to require the use of U.S. steel in U.S. pipelines is a textbook case of a local content requirement the GATT/WTO has long held is inconsistent with Article III:4.

    The classic ruling on local content requirements was (ironically) made in a case brought by the United States against Canada in 1982 and finalised in 1984.

    The United States successfully challenged the administration of Canada’s Foreign Investment Review Act, which made investment approvals conditional on undertakings, including the purchase of certain products from domestic sources (”Canada – administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act”, GATT, 1984).

    The GATT case brought against Canada has direct parallels to the Trump administration’s plan to require pipeline constructors to use U.S.-made steel.

    The United States has always been a fierce opponent of local content requirements because they discriminate against U.S. exporters and investors.

    U.S. trade officials have repeatedly fought local content requirements under the GATT/WTO and in most cases the United States has prevailed.

    The United States has challenged content requirements applied by India (solar cells), Argentina (import licenses), China (tax refunds, auto parts), Turkey (rice), Canada (wheat, auto parts) and the Philippines (auto parts) among others.

    In fact, the United States has brought more challenges to local content requirements than any other member of the WTO.

    The blunt reality for the Trump administration is that there is no way to make pipeline approvals conditional on the use of U.S. steel without undermining the U.S. goal of fair market access for U.S. exporters.


    Full Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle33755571/
    "War is hell, but actual combat is a motherf#cker"
    - Col. David Hackworth

    Comment


    • Lowest bid is not the best policy. You get what you pay for.
      ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

      BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

      BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeltaOne View Post
        Interesting article on this subject from a couple of days ago:

        Trump’s plan to require U.S. pipelines to be built with U.S. steel is clearly inconsistent with the national treatment obligation set out in Article III:4.

        “The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.”

        The plan to require the use of U.S. steel in U.S. pipelines is a textbook case of a local content requirement the GATT/WTO has long held is inconsistent with Article III:4.

        The classic ruling on local content requirements was (ironically) made in a case brought by the United States against Canada in 1982 and finalised in 1984.

        The United States successfully challenged the administration of Canada’s Foreign Investment Review Act, which made investment approvals conditional on undertakings, including the purchase of certain products from domestic sources (”Canada – administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act”, GATT, 1984).

        The GATT case brought against Canada has direct parallels to the Trump administration’s plan to require pipeline constructors to use U.S.-made steel.

        The United States has always been a fierce opponent of local content requirements because they discriminate against U.S. exporters and investors.

        U.S. trade officials have repeatedly fought local content requirements under the GATT/WTO and in most cases the United States has prevailed.

        The United States has challenged content requirements applied by India (solar cells), Argentina (import licenses), China (tax refunds, auto parts), Turkey (rice), Canada (wheat, auto parts) and the Philippines (auto parts) among others.

        In fact, the United States has brought more challenges to local content requirements than any other member of the WTO.

        The blunt reality for the Trump administration is that there is no way to make pipeline approvals conditional on the use of U.S. steel without undermining the U.S. goal of fair market access for U.S. exporters.


        Full Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle33755571/
        Problem is, the market isn't fair.
        ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

        BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

        BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          Remember that plenty of environmentalists use your last line for their own reasoning as well. Wanting to enforce strict regulations created over worries about companies cutting corners with cheaper goods that could endanger the environment is a cornerstone of environmentalist dogma.
          Everyone can agree we don't want oil spills. Oil companies are as certain of that as the most devoted tree-hugger.

          But we also don't want economy-crippling oil prices and politically-restrictive oil dependency either.

          We have decades of pipeline experience; the current regs about material standards, operating procedures, and inspections are sufficient to keep the risk within acceptable tolerances.

          So long as we stick to them.

          Buying third-rate junk because it is built by foreign companies because it is PC is stupid and self-defeating.

          Buying viable products that as a bonus create US Jobs is a smart move.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
            The Left will fight against American prosperity with every fiber of their being.
            Always.
            That's like saying people were against slavery because they didn't like seeing cotton plantations making profits.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              Everyone can agree we don't want oil spills. Oil companies are as certain of that as the most devoted tree-hugger.

              But we also don't want economy-crippling oil prices and politically-restrictive oil dependency either.

              We have decades of pipeline experience; the current regs about material standards, operating procedures, and inspections are sufficient to keep the risk within acceptable tolerances.

              So long as we stick to them.
              I am not disagreeing with you, but I am pointing out that the logic behind moves like these is one shared by people on the 'other side' and is against free market principles due to government intervention to demand certain purchases be sourced locally.

              That's not to say the US steel wouldn't be the best for their needs, only that once the government mandates you have to buy it, it no longer is a free market choice.

              Buying third-rate junk because it is built by foreign companies because it is PC is stupid and self-defeating.

              Buying viable products that as a bonus create US Jobs is a smart move.
              You contradict yourself, however. One could flip this around and say "buying overly expensive local products because it is PC is stupid and self-defeating" because your next line about US jobs illustrates the motivations.

              And it is PC at work. Conservatives try to ignore how frequently they indulge in PCism because of a strange belief that PC is only present on the left. When a government using its powers to force companies to purchase local goods so the profits and jobs remain in the US as to appease their voters is a perfect example of a political, not economical, decision.

              If it were a purely economical decision, it would be much simpler to make: weigh the lower cost of the foreign products against the higher risk of an accident. If the risk isn't as high as its been suggested, then the foreign steel may be a very viable option. If the risk is as high or higher, or the difference in price isn't as great as it might first appear, then US products become the better option.

              Once people start demanding businesses make purchasing choices based on appeasing whichever group they wish to court the most, it is political correctness running to the fore: either you're an evil corporate enviro-terrorist for threatening American wildlife with your unsafe Chinese products, or you're an anti-American traitor for purchasing your goods internationally.

              I'll add as a note (because I love to hear myself talk) that I am not disagreeing with the idea of restrictions on higher-risk jobs such as these, nor am I placing the "blame" (if there is any) on Trump consider that, as many pointed out, these sorts of regulations in one form or another have existed for quite some time.

              I know it may be odd to suggest a sane solution, but perhaps, instead of demanding it be purchased from American sources, one could just mandate a certain quality level to meet said security needs without requiring a specific source? As long as the product is safe, it shouldn't matter where it is from.

              That still ends up with a likely similar result (buying American) without making it as deliberate how much intervention this really is.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                That's not to say the US steel wouldn't be the best for their needs, only that once the government mandates you have to buy it, it no longer is a free market choice.
                You worry too much about meaningless labels.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  You worry too much about meaningless labels.
                  I'm just a sucker for personal liberty. But you're right, it is an increasingly meaningless concept these days. So much more the pity.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    I'm just a sucker for personal liberty. But you're right, it is an increasingly meaningless concept these days. So much more the pity.
                    There is no personal liberty involved. A little less drama and less hand-wringing over labels would help.

                    There is no downside to using US steel in this matter.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      There is no personal liberty involved. A little less drama and less hand-wringing over labels would help.
                      Except for the whole government legislating from whom you can purchase aspect, yes, there is no personal liberty involved.

                      That doesn't mean this is some monumental moment in the history of America, a point in time where the masses will have to rise up to stop an erosion of their rights in the face of government oppression (Rabble rabble rabble!). I think I said as much many posts ago, but this ruling is naught but a minor tickle in the back of my mind, something that doesn't really shake my natural suspicion towards federal authority, but hardly something to cry in alarm about.

                      But like with anything where personal choice is limited by the central authority, some caution is always healthy.

                      There is no downside to using US steel in this matter.
                      As long as all the assumptions being made about US steel being the cheapest product that also works safely are true, then you are right.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        Except for the whole government legislating from whom you can purchase aspect, yes, there is no personal liberty involved.
                        HAZMAT codes. There for a reason.

                        And Bobo made you buy insurance.

                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        That doesn't mean this is some monumental moment in the history of America, a point in time where the masses will have to rise up to stop an erosion of their rights in the face of government oppression (Rabble rabble rabble!). I think I said as much many posts ago, but this ruling is naught but a minor tickle in the back of my mind, something that doesn't really shake my natural suspicion towards federal authority, but hardly something to cry in alarm about.

                        But like with anything where personal choice is limited by the central authority, some caution is always healthy.
                        No it isn't. Its just pointless whining.

                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        As long as all the assumptions being made about US steel being the cheapest product that also works safely are true, then you are right.
                        You still don't get it.

                        The Chinese don't play fair; they don't let us into their markets, they steal R&D and underbid by making substandard products.

                        So Trump is edging them out of the game. He's not screwing over one US company for another US company.

                        What this means is Americans keeping their homes, their medical insurance, sending their kids to better schools, keeping families together. Communities having the tax base for public services. Good things.

                        If that isn't important to you, or less important than Chinese corporation profit margins, than the caution should be felt about you.

                        Like I said a while back: them or us. They will never play fair, and they care nothing about us. That is exactly how we should play towards them.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          HAZMAT codes. There for a reason.

                          And Bobo made you buy insurance.
                          Yes, and we've seen almost a decade of complaining about it. The "the other party did it" doesn't make the action itself any better. If anything is just further illustrates how both parties are equally confident using their authority to intrude in citizens' lives when it suits their political agenda.

                          No it isn't. Its just pointless whining.
                          In the same way it was pointless whining when people complained about being forced to buy life insurance, sure.

                          Well, no, I guess that's unfair. Because that actually directly impacted the average Joe in a way he couldn't just ignore, it was suddenly a matter of grave importance. But as long as these restrictions apply to people and things far removed from the common man, then apathy reasserts itself. It isn't that the act itself was fundamentally different, it just affected more people.

                          You still don't get it.

                          The Chinese don't play fair; they don't let us into their markets, they steal R&D and underbid by making substandard products.
                          If they were substandard then they wouldn't be purchased by American firms, now would they? Or is it that their substandardness is offset by low-enough prices to make it competitive? And what happens when you stop focusing on just China but look to other nations?

                          So Trump is edging them out of the game. He's not screwing over one US company for another US company.
                          So Trump is engaging in the same economic behavior as a Communist nation with a controlled economy.

                          What this means is Americans keeping their homes, their medical insurance, sending their kids to better schools, keeping families together. Communities having the tax base for public services. Good things.
                          Except for those companies who are being forced to pay more for the products they use, leaving less money to spend elsewhere, such as growing their business, hiring more workers, and fighting unemployment, leading to hardships for Americans struggling in its aftermath. Families broken apart as they languish, unemployed, whispering to the cold uncaring dark "I wish those companies had been able to reduce their costs... maybe then, just maybe, I could have found a job when they invested those savings and Tiny Tim wouldn't have... he wouldn't have..."

                          Scene.

                          So, emotional appeal checklist met. Now we can move on.

                          If that isn't important to you, or less important than Chinese corporation profit margins, than the caution should be felt about you.
                          There is no need to continue with the "then you're a traitor!" strawman fallacy. It's old hat at this point and doesn't do you any service because it doesn't address the actual arguments used.

                          Like I said a while back: them or us. They will never play fair, and they care nothing about us. That is exactly how we should play towards them.
                          By having the government step in to protect us from the dangers of a free market by ensuring we can't by equal-quality products from anywhere else, regardless of the prices involved.

                          Saying "you don't understand" is an empty argument when willfully engaged in ignoring contrary arguments and their actual reasoning. Whether its casting aspersions on their character by questioning their loyalty or jus dismissing anything said as whining, it looks to be the standard partisan playbook in action.

                          If you were a liberal you'd would have just suggested I was a fascist bigot instead of a whining traitor.

                          The argument has never been "we should buy goods from China instead of the US". It's never been "it is wrong for the government to set rules for public safety". It has never been "America is terrible and deserves to suffer boo hoo hoo".

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            Yes, and we've seen almost a decade of complaining about it. The "the other party did it" doesn't make the action itself any better. If anything is just further illustrates how both parties are equally confident using their authority to intrude in citizens' lives when it suits their political agenda.
                            Not HAZMAT codes, EPA codes. Most HAZMAT codes are DoT, not EPA.


                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            In the same way it was pointless whining when people complained about being forced to buy life insurance, sure.

                            Well, no, I guess that's unfair. Because that actually directly impacted the average Joe in a way he couldn't just ignore, it was suddenly a matter of grave importance. But as long as these restrictions apply to people and things far removed from the common man, then apathy reasserts itself. It isn't that the act itself was fundamentally different, it just affected more people.
                            Its unfair, but because Bobocare was (intended) to be permanent, whereas this deal is just a couple pipelines.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            If they were substandard then they wouldn't be purchased by American firms, now would they? Or is it that their substandardness is offset by low-enough prices to make it competitive? And what happens when you stop focusing on just China but look to other nations?
                            There was a reason so many Chinese dollars flowed into the Hillabeast's Foundation and campaign coffers. There's a bridge in California where safety regs were ignored by the Chinese.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            So Trump is engaging in the same economic behavior as a Communist nation with a controlled economy.
                            No.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            Except for those companies who are being forced to pay more for the products they use, leaving less money to spend elsewhere, such as growing their business, hiring more workers, and fighting unemployment, leading to hardships for Americans struggling in its aftermath. Families broken apart as they languish, unemployed, whispering to the cold uncaring dark "I wish those companies had been able to reduce their costs... maybe then, just maybe, I could have found a job when they invested those savings and Tiny Tim wouldn't have... he wouldn't have..."
                            Not at all. Neither of those corps are going to be broken by the costs of doing it right.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            There is no need to continue with the "then you're a traitor!" strawman fallacy. It's old hat at this point and doesn't do you any service because it doesn't address the actual arguments used.
                            It is not a strawman, it is the crux of this entire matter. It is a bit extreme, I admit, but it is exactly pertinent.

                            Trump won because he pulled the Rest Belt. He pulled the Rust Belt because the people there are angry and increasingly desperate. They are tired of labels being used by their own elected leaders to excuse sending jobs and contracts overseas. To excuse why Chinese & Japanese companies are poaching US contracts while holding their markets out of bounds.

                            Trump said he would help them, and they bet on him. Now he is making good; he wants US steel used, which besides making good sense in the safety aspect, and means that mills will not close, Americans won't lose their houses, and American kids will go to schools which a decent tax base.

                            That is what this all about. Labels don't mean a thing; 2016 showed that. Either you are with us or you are with them is the message; us or them, as I keep trying to get across to you. No one cares about labels, it is simply about the survival of jobs, homes, towns.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            By having the government step in to protect us from the dangers of a free market by ensuring we can't by equal-quality products from anywhere else, regardless of the prices involved.
                            The point is to buy American to help the people of the Rust Belt. Us or them.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            Saying "you don't understand" is an empty argument when willfully engaged in ignoring contrary arguments and their actual reasoning. Whether its casting aspersions on their character by questioning their loyalty or jus dismissing anything said as whining, it looks to be the standard partisan playbook in action.
                            Not at all: You don't seem to understand.

                            It is just whining about labels when the issue is quality of life for marginalized Americans.

                            Just because you are not grasping the point does not mean that the point doesn't exist. You keep confusing pointless theory with what is both real and of value.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            If you were a liberal you'd would have just suggested I was a fascist bigot instead of a whining traitor.
                            I doubt it; I'm right, and liberals seldom if ever are.

                            To ease your delicate sensibilities the 'you' was meant in general.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            The argument has never been "we should buy goods from China instead of the US". It's never been "it is wrong for the government to set rules for public safety". It has never been "America is terrible and deserves to suffer boo hoo hoo".
                            The first two seem to be the entirety of your argument up to this point.

                            Because the only point is we need to ensure that the steel is US-made for the benefit of US workers. There is no argument that supports harming those people.

                            And not incidentally, but win or lose Trump has taken a public stand to make good his promise to the Rust Belt, where a surprising number of DNC Congressmen are facing re-election in 2018 and 2020...so we are not only helping American works, but the future of America as well.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              Not HAZMAT codes, EPA codes. Most HAZMAT codes are DoT, not EPA.
                              Which is where the "both parties" bit comes into play, since even the EPA hasn't been run solely by the Dems since its inception.

                              Its unfair, but because Bobocare was (intended) to be permanent, whereas this deal is just a couple pipelines.
                              But the idea behind it is still there. While slippery slope arguments can be seen as fallacious, they do have more grounding when used against a single target which has a track record of trying to use every excuse it can to expand its reach and dig deeper.

                              There was a reason so many Chinese dollars flowed into the Hillabeast's Foundation and campaign coffers. There's a bridge in California where safety regs were ignored by the Chinese.
                              Which is why you should never trust government authorities to be doing what is best for the nation. They're self-serving first, with America as an afterthought.

                              No.
                              Quite right. Trump isn't imprisoning anyone who disagrees with the plan, making it entirely different.

                              Not at all. Neither of those corps are going to be broken by the costs of doing it right.
                              Being broken isn't the same as failing to expand. But more to the point, it was more a response to base, emotional arguments that spending money on an American company is going to result in a net boon for the American worker.

                              The same argument has been used for tariffs in the past, and it didn't work then - the benefits of forcing Americans to buy American has a negative impact on the population when they're forced to buy artificially inflated prices just to protect.

                              Protectionism isn't a magic bullet that will lead to an American renaissance, and this is - while certainly on the micro rather than the macro level - an example of protectionism. It wasn't enough to simply mandate a quality required to meet safety regulations, it was to mandate safety and nationality.



                              It is not a strawman, it is the crux of this entire matter. It is a bit extreme, I admit, but it is exactly pertinent.
                              A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
                              Wikipedia

                              It is entirely a straw man because you aren't addressing my argument. You are pushing forward an argument about loyalty and treason and favoring non-American companies over American ones which is not pertinent to my actual words. It is establishing the concept that I pushing to send finances to China over America due to a questionable sense of loyalty to the nation.

                              It is disingenuous and doesn't help your own argument because it's not what I've claimed, argued for, or even believe in.

                              Trump won because he pulled the Rest Belt. He pulled the Rust Belt because the people there are angry and increasingly desperate. They are tired of labels being used by their own elected leaders to excuse sending jobs and contracts overseas. To excuse why Chinese & Japanese companies are poaching US contracts while holding their markets out of bounds.

                              Trump said he would help them, and they bet on him. Now he is making good; he wants US steel used, which besides making good sense in the safety aspect, and means that mills will not close, Americans won't lose their houses, and American kids will go to schools which a decent tax base.
                              Yes, he made those promises. That doesn't mean he was right, those results would come, other Americans wouldn't suffer if he pursued such actions, or that this pipeline was the end all, be all of his economic decisions.

                              That is what this all about. Labels don't mean a thing; 2016 showed that. Either you are with us or you are with them is the message; us or them, as I keep trying to get across to you. No one cares about labels, it is simply about the survival of jobs, homes, towns.
                              It is ironic that you talk about labels while implying emphatically how important labels are. "Us" vs "them" are just labels as well. People either care or don't care about labels. It cant go both ways.

                              The point is to buy American to help the people of the Rust Belt. Us or them.
                              Alright then, lets push this further down the "Us" vs "Them" rabbit hole: why should I care about the fates of Americans in the rust belt (them) if it requires hurting people in my community (Us)?

                              Again, I am not talking about Chinese companies on this single pipeline. I am talking about the broader concept of an American government mandating from which nation I can purchase goods I wish to use. If the people in my community (Us) are dependent upon cheap, imported foreign goods for our businesses and to make ends meet, then why should we support Them over Us?

                              When the argument is set up in nationalistic terms, with a foreign boogie man hurting poor American workers, it is easy to make the emotional appeal and suggest any dissent is tantamount to treason

                              Not at all: You don't seem to understand.

                              It is just whining about labels when the issue is quality of life for marginalized Americans.

                              Just because you are not grasping the point does not mean that the point doesn't exist. You keep confusing pointless theory with what is both real and of value.
                              Pointless theory is what this nation was founded on. Even the very concepts of morality and ethics are, at their core, just pointless theory. We give theory meaning by using it as guidelines and striving to follow it.

                              But the really ironic thing is that you don't seem to understand that my concerns are not even grounded in pointless theory, but simple economics. I don't like tariffs because they hurt people economically by favoring special economic interests. The idea behind the government using mandates to force the American people to buy from local, rather than foreign, producers is a self-defeating system that only enriches those special interests and garners political benefits.

                              Political benefits such as appeasing a voter demographic important in swinging a recent and very close election.

                              I doubt it; I'm right, and liberals seldom if ever are.

                              To ease your delicate sensibilities the 'you' was meant in general.
                              I'm sure it was.


                              The first two seem to be the entirety of your argument up to this point.
                              They can seem that way if one doesn't actually read posts, or simply dismisses anything they don't want to read as whining. If you go back and re-read my posts, you'll see the mistakes made in assuming "I am concerned about this move which, if expanded, could represent a wider threat to the free market" is the same as "we should buy unsafe Chinese goods because I hate American workers and want their families to suffer".

                              Because the only point is we need to ensure that the steel is US-made for the benefit of US workers. There is no argument that supports harming those people.

                              And not incidentally, but win or lose Trump has taken a public stand to make good his promise to the Rust Belt, where a surprising number of DNC Congressmen are facing re-election in 2018 and 2020...so we are not only helping American works, but the future of America as well.
                              And there is no argument that could be made that supports hurting Americans whose livelihoods are tied into the import of Chinese goods. Or in favor of hurting those Americans whose livelihoods are tied into those companies who will have to spend more on American steel rather than cheaper foreign products.

                              Again, I have to stress how I am not arguing that we should be buying Chinese steel. Somehow, there has been confusion on that front, so I guess I need to keep hammering it home. I have not, nor ever have made that claim. I'd be happy to see these companies choose to buy American. Thrilled, in fact, if it was just a fact that American goods were the best and thus there wasn't even room for debate.

                              What has been expressed on my behalf is a concern that government interference into the free market to gain political points for the reigning government is a very dangerous path to head down, because it is not a magic bullet to economic problems. Especially when it sounds like this is necessary to keep these companies from buying the goods they want to purchase - aka what is the economically best choice - in favor of using legislation and laws to ensure they only buy from the Party approved industries.

                              It is not an automatic win-win choice for the American people to have the government tell you where you can and cannot buy your goods and to place barriers up to prevent the free trade of goods and services. Especially when such moves are motivated not by economic reality but political greed. The fact that how these steel workers voted is mentioned more than once in the responses only deepens my suspicions that this isn't in America's best interests, but the subversion of the market to appease a key voter demographic.

                              Autarky just doesn't work. What is worrying is that the rhetoric used has favored a protectionist stance, and this is an expression of it. My arguments have never been about just the use of Chinese steel in one single pipeline - restated here to avoid any unfortunate confusion after the fact. It has never been that these companies shouldn't buy American, or that we as a nation shouldn't strive to purchase from our fellow citizens before seeking cheaper goods elsewhere.

                              It is about the government mandating as much, and how one key example at the start of a presidency can create doubts for where we are headed over the next four years.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X