The stats are looking good. It hasn't transformed into wins (jobs and higher wages) yet. It should (the job part; doubt the wage part), but we'll see.
It seems to me the steel tariffs were a stalling tactic, buying time for the American steel industry to consolidate, streamline, and ready itself for the world market. American steel makers were getting their butts kicked in domestic and world markets, and needed a reprieve to adjust. If they were just a measure to prop up the American steel industry as payback for campaign contributions or to get votes in crucial steel-producing swing states, then it makes no sense for Bush to end the tariffs now, on the eve of his next election. Now, I'm going to get up on my soapbox about free trade. I am all for free trade, when it is between two or more nations of about equal economic footing, with capitalist free markets, who both have goods the other needs and when it can benefit both parties. I am all for free trade between the U.S. and Canada, or the U.S. and the United Kingdom. I am NOT for free trade between the West and the Third World, or between capitalist economies and state-controlled economies, and here is why; Third World nations often do not have the same stringent environmental standards and labor laws that the industrialized nations must live and work under, therefore, companies there can operate with much lower overhead and labor costs. Communist nations like China and Vietnam employ virtual slave labor in their factories (manufacturing Power Ranger dolls in those "re-education camps" and all that) and the Latin American sweatshops aren't much better. There is simply no way highly unionized and protected American and British labor can compete with that. Also, their currencies are valued at much less than ours, and we consistently run into problems in agricultural free trade with nations who grow the same crops as American farmers do, but have much lower overhead because of lax environmental laws or less expense on anti-frost chemicals or pesticides etc. A prime example of this is sugar. If Castro ever falls and Cuba is granted free trade with the U.S., Louisiana's sugar industry is toast, simply because Cuban farmers can grow it a heck of a lot cheaper than American farmers can and can grow it virtually year-round. Instead of elevating the Third World to our level of environmental and labor protection, we are going down to their level. Also, free trade is the precursor to one-world govt. Don't laugh, it's true. Free trade is based on the premise of seeing the world as one market. Free traders see producer nations (Saudi Arabia for oil, Vietnam for toys, Brazil for beef and sugar) and consumer nations (the U.S. as the biggest consumer nation of all). Which is fine, if we in the U.S. are content to all become fat, lazy rich people. But that ain't happenin'. We need to have some kind of manufacturing base in case the world ever goes to Hell and we have to throw down with China or something like that. It is foolish to think we are going to become a nation of computer programmers, or worse yet, a nation built entirely on the service industry. But we are headed in that direction. And that leaves us vulnerable in the national security and national sovereignty department. Free trade with other industrialized Western nations, yes. But let's hold off on Latin America until they are better about smog and sweatshops.
i understand, but i think free trade, even with third world countries is a good idea. if we cant compete with their lower prices then like you said, we could move our industry more towards high tech or service industries than low level factory stuff. i dont worry about our vulnerability because i think as long as we have money we will be fine, no matter if our money is produced by programmers or steelworkers. if we had to throw down with china, we would destroy em anyways, because we will always be far richer than china because capitalism=riches. i figure it doesnt matter what sort of industries make us rich, as long as we are rich, we can defend ourselves. also we would save money on cheap overseas goods of course, and we could maybe invest that money in shifting to new types of industries. cheap goods are good. also maybe we could kill all our ridiculous environmental rules, and compete more easily.
