Tradewar!

[jaguar]

looks like the EU is about to slap a 5% tariff on US exports, battern down the hatches!

5 to 1 says a last minute deal is brokered. Sure is interesting how willing everyone seems to start a tradewar across the atlantic though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And the winner is...........China.

[Beestie]

You mean US imports?

I'll try to find something on this as I did not know that trouble was brewing.

[be-bop]

looks like the EU is about to slap a 5% tariff on US exports, battern down the hatches!

Unlike the tarrif on steel Bush wanted to impose!!!

This has been allowed by the World Trade Organisation due to illegal tax breaks to US companies like Boing,Microsoft etc.

Hey we have got to recoup the money for helping you guys get rid of Saddam cut us a deal with Iraq's oil and we will all be friends again

[jaguar]

Well they're exported from the US and imported into the EU.
I always thought of it as X imports Y's exports.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You had it right, Jag.
Isuppose the MicroSoft stuff from India or Mexico, don't count.

[jaguar]

Isuppose the MicroSoft stuff from India or Mexico, don't count.

?

Personally I'm hoping it doesn't become a tit-for-tat. I doubt it, the rebublicans can't risk it in an election year. Sure gonna piss off the lobbyists when it doesn't get through though. If it does go through and stays till then it'll be @ 14% which will cripple industries to the point of colapse. Won't do much for the dollar either.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You can be sure Boeing will throw all their weight, which is considerable, into stopping this and all tariffs.

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
You can be sure Boeing will throw all their weight, which is considerable, into stopping this and all tariffs.

Boeing's 'weight' has been substantially diminished since their 'tanker' bribery scandel was exposed internationally. For those unfamiliar with the scam, Boeing was to be given a contract for lesser air refueling 767s only so that the government could help Boeing maintain income. And to increase Boeing's long term profits, the tankers were to be leased - not purchased.

BTW another contract was announced this week. DoD announced a 50% unilateral increase in fees paid to Lockheed Martin for military space launches. Military openly admitted this was to compensate Lockheed Martin for having lost so much commercial satellite launch business. Of course they lost. Those who stifle innovation in America have given both the Russians and French the world leadership in commercial satellite launches by making inferior launch programs and designs. What does the US have to compete with the far more efficient Arriene V? What does the US have to compete with the massive payloads that the Russians can launch?

The US does have one reliable and competitive launch vehicle called Delta. But Delta does not have payload capacities of either the French or Russians. Again, due to the Space Shuttle mentality and silly 'big buck' boondoogles in space, the US has conceded the commerical space business. And now the US military will subsidize those companies who did not innovate by increasing their fees 50% unilaterally - no strings attached? Where in the world does the US (or Boeing) get credibility when we subsidize badly run companies?

Amazing. Airlines are so poorly managed as to even wish that 'economies of scale' will solve their problems. So they consolidated - got bigger - and therefore got even less efficient. There is no 'economies of scale' as their MBAs would claim. So we even gave the airlines $8billion dollars - no strings attached - and they still cannot make a profit. Where is any credibility when we openly subsidize badly run airlines?

These are examples of why complaints from Boeing carry no weight in world trade markets. Boeing and other American companies are now openly subsidized.

A few bankruptcies would remove management who does not come from where the work gets done, runs to government for protection, and who still believes the myth called 'economies of scale'. Problems in places such a Boeing are traceable to, in part, the bad management they bought from McDonnel Douglas. Many purchased businesses that are in trouble because of bad management.

Boeing - for the first time since before WWII - did not risk the company again for a new innovative plane. Boeing's previous success was because they took risks - management came for where the work gets done and could understand the value of that risk. Classic example of taking risk - Boeing 747. Where today have they taken another product risk?

Today the innovation leader even in Boeing's own core business is Airbus. Boeing has a management problem. Boeing may even need a bankruptcy to clean house of too much bad management. That means Boeing has little influence on tarrifs applied against the US due to too many publically exposed "US unfair trading practices" and too many government subsidies via intentionally bloated military contracts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Mostly true TW, except the tanker thing was ethics, not bribery, but that doesn't matter much as the end result is the same. Boeing does have considerable weight in washington when it comes to lobbying against tariffs because of the number of congressional districts they have operations in. Their neglect of the commercial market has blown their influence overseas and that's a result of having no "airplane people" running the company anymore.

[jaguar]

tariffs are go!
Now watch the diplomats move now that one nasty fire has been lit under their asses. This has been brewing for over a year, am I the only one that thinks the US thought it could call the EU's bluff and get away with it?

I'll be curious to see what happens now, this could get very messy.