"Buy American" Provision Meets Opposition Abroad

[Aaron]

Besides which, this isn't America nationalizing. This is America trying to get our steel industry back on track. The deal currently doesn't preclude anything else but foreign steel, for use by these contractors, on these specific projects.

How much steel do we buy from the UK?

In fact, I'm straining to think of anything at all that we buy from the UK.

And, I don't think China is going to jeopardize their trade relations status with us, just because government contractors aren't buying one commodity from them for these specific projects.

Heres an idea; why do you do both! OMG,a solution that doesn't require America to piss off the world and get things on track! Lets not forget that the single minded America Fuck Yeah! solution to problems is what earned the worlds ire over the last eight years.

You of all people have no right to call me a moron.

What is that supposed to mean?

Edit: No offense to you personally intended here Tsu. It's just frustrating and sad that everything that involves your country has to be either or.

[Tsukiyumi]

Frankly, I'm failing to see why this is going to "piss off the world". What, because they're not included in one set of projects, they're going to feel left out, and get pissy about it? I call BS on that whole argument. If Canada suddenly said "we don't want to use Pepsi in our government vending machines anymore; we're only using Canada Dry from now on," do you think America would get pissy, and impose a bunch of "retaliatory" tariffs?

It's one material, used on certain projects in our country. Besides the fact that there is a waiver that says "if it's not in the best interests of the taxpayers, we can use foreign steel". We aren't cutting off trade with everybody. We're just going to use our steel for these projects; our steel industry is operating at 45% capacity right now, and these projects will hopefully put that number back up around 100%. Creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[Aaron]

Frankly, I'm failing to see why this is going to "piss off the world". What, because they're not included in one set of projects, they're going to feel left out, and get pissy about it? I call BS on that whole argument. If Canada suddenly said "we don't want to use Pepsi in our government vending machines anymore; we're only using Canada Dry from now on," do you think America would get pissy, and impose a bunch of "retaliatory" tariffs?

It's one material, used on certain projects in our country. Besides the fact that there is a waiver that says "if it's not in the best interests of the taxpayers, we can use foreign steel". We aren't cutting off trade with everybody. We're just going to use our steel for these projects; our steel industry is operating at 45% capacity right now, and these projects will hopefully put that number back up around 100%. Creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

if it's not in the best interests of the taxpayers, we can use foreign steel

You know that just shoots the whole argument on both sides down. "If it's in the best interests of the taxpayer", well than WTF is the point of this legislation then? If the Canadain dollar is worth 76 cents American than it's going to be cheaper to buy Canadian steel, which would be in the interests of the taxpayer, especially considering the amount of bloat and graft that is inevitable in any government run project.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm assuming it means "if our drastically underused steel plants can't meet 100% of the demand, we'll use foreign steel." The objective here is to get a cornerstone American industry back in shape, which would be in the best interests of the taxpayers. I'm sure most Americans right now would be willing to pay slightly more for these projects, if the money was going to other Americans. Well, the hardcore Republicans might have a problem with it, but everyone else will agree, especially people finding work because of the expanded industry.

[Captain Seafort]

QQ

So, are you going to respond, or just type random consonants?

But its our choice.

If you as an individual want to shoot yourself in the foot, fair enough. I'm taking issue with the US government shooting every company that provides a service to it in the foot, despite the appeals of said companies.

Its kind of hard to compete with countries like Korea and China when they pay their workers such shitty wages.

In low quality mass-produced shit, yes, China particularly. The solution is to produce a higher quality product and earn orders that way, rather than throwing a tantrum.

Kind of a paranoid domino effect.

1)The increased costs have nothing to do with any domino effect - they're the direct consequence of the governmental edict.
2)Paranoid is when you think people are out to get you without evidence. Reciprocal tariffs are simply restoring a trade relationship to an even keel.

Because I live in one of the areas I was talking about. And during the elections it was a hot topic for the other two areas. I think I know people in my area better than someone who once said all Americans were undisciplined morons. All you have to do is go to the boarder between the US and Mexico on the southern side to see why its bad for the northern side.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. EVIDENCE. Not anecdotes.

Making your country lose out on a few hundred works projects is hardly crippling the US economy, nor your economy.

How well do you think companies are going to cope in the current economic climate if their costs are artificially hiked by 25%?

Yes I suppose in your twisted view of things it might.

Ah, so explaining the inevitable and likely consequences of protectionism is "twisted" is it?

[Reliant121]

You of all people have no right to call me a moron.

Thankyou for that, Now I direct you to my report. I am hardly unintelligent (no arrogance intended)

Look at the United Kingdom. We lost our Coal mining industry, same as America has lost its steel. If we decided to say "you aren't allowed to use foreign coal, you must use your own!" people would be up in arms. no different here.

besides this is in my view a fundamental breach in the companies rights. If the company should CHOOSE to use American Steel in construction, fine. But It should ALSO be fine to choose to use Italian steel, or Argentinian steel, whoever. It is their choice, and it is their fundamental human right to have that choice. Taking that choice away, is taking away a civil right to choose. And I dont care who you are, you have no right to do that.

[Tsukiyumi]

I think we should let them choose where to buy from. And then simply choose the companies using American steel for the projects. It's their choice whether to buy American or not, and it's the government's choice who gets the contracts. Problem solved.

[Aaron]

I'm assuming it means "if our drastically underused steel plants can't meet 100% of the demand, we'll use foreign steel." The objective here is to get a cornerstone American industry back in shape, which would be in the best interests of the taxpayers. I'm sure most Americans right now would be willing to pay slightly more for these projects, if the money was going to other Americans. Well, the hardcore Republicans might have a problem with it, but everyone else will agree, especially people finding work because of the expanded industry.

That depends, is it going to mean higher taxes? I doubt that anyone is really interested in that unless it happens to be on the top 10% or so of Americans and we all know how that always turns out.

[Tsukiyumi]

...unless it happens to be on the top 10% or so of Americans and we all know how that always turns out.

That's how I would do it. But, you're right, it probably won't work out that way. However, the country as a whole seems to be in a "let's get America back on track" sort of mindset right now.

I'm sure our mills won't be able to meet 100% of the demand, and then we'll end up buying some foreign steel anyways. We're just going first in line this time. After all, we're not talking about contracts for projects in Iraq, or anywhere else but here.

[Captain Seafort]

I think we should let them choose where to buy from. And then simply choose the companies using American steel for the projects. It's their choice whether to buy American or not, and it's the government's choice who gets the contracts. Problem solved.

There's a couple of slight problems with that:

1) The overall effect remains the same, you've simply gone from using legislation to using blackmail.

2) You've just shot the US taxpayer in the foot, just as badly as before, since by excluding all the companies that use non-US raw materials you've not only reduced the number of potential bidders, potentially resulting in a substandard product, but also booted the price up (given that Congress felt the need to stick this clause in in the firstplace, I assume US raw materials are more expensive, otherwise there'd be no point).

[Aaron]

That's how I would do it. But, you're right, it probably won't work out that way. However, the country as a whole seems to be in a "let's get America back on track" sort of mindset right now.

I'm sure our mills won't be able to meet 100% of the demand, and then we'll end up buying some foreign steel anyways. We're just going first in line this time. After all, we're not talking about contracts for projects in Iraq, or anywhere else but here.

And I don't have a problem with that, my problem was is that it reeked of the same BS that had been going on for a decade. I'm not sure you guys realise how this stuff appears to the rest of the world. An American may think "ok, they say we're going to buy it all here but we know it won't fly" but a foreigner is going "WTF are these tards doing?" because our news doesn't exactly go into too much detail.

[Reliant121]

My problem is that it's going to become illegal to choose, if it were pushed through. THAT is morally wrong in my opinion.

[Tsukiyumi]

1) The overall effect remains the same, you've simply gone from using legislation to using blackmail.

Except that the government always decides who gets the contracts, not necessarily using a "lowest bidder" approach.

2) You've just shot the US taxpayer in the foot, just as badly as before, since by excluding all the companies that use non-US raw materials you've not only reduced the number of potential bidders, potentially resulting in a substandard product, but also booted the price up (given that Congress felt the need to stick this clause in in the firstplace, I assume US raw materials are more expensive, otherwise there'd be no point).

I agree with the possibility of substandard product. Hopefully, they'll monitor quality closely.

And, our materials may be more expensive, but like I said, it's a cornerstone industry that needs to be revitalized one way or another. I'd rather see them work for it than see another multi-billion dollar bailout.

Finally, it creates a lot of jobs; besides the guys in the mills themselves, there'll be new management and accounting positions needed, new transportation jobs, services in the areas around the mills will have increased business, etc.

[SteveK]

How much steel do we buy from the UK?

In fact, I'm straining to think of anything at all that we buy from the UK.

Imports are presented here: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/sta ... c4120.html

Exports here: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/sta ... c4120.html

edit: I've thought about this a bit more since my response yesterday. The purpose of the goveroulnment laying out these funds is two-fold. The first is to help the economy, the second is to improve the infrastructure. While limiting imports would increase the amount that the infrastructure is improved, it reduces the amount that the economy is improved. Imagine if the government announced that to help the auto industry it was going to replace the entire fleet of mail trucks. It wouldn't really help that much to import them from Korea would it?

[Graham Kennedy]

If they aren't more expensive now, I can't imagine anything that would be more likely to drive the price up in future than eliminating the competition.