Steel Tariffs meet Car Sales
Posted October 20th, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
Auto makers want the international trade commission to end steel tariffs. The high price of steel hurts car sales. The U.S. auto industry is losing jobs.
This must create a dilemma for protectionists like U.S. Senate candidate, Sherrod Brown.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:52 am
oh, nice try, bokkie! but i'm pretty sure it was your boy, bushie who backed the steel tariffs way back in his, i think, first 100 days.
oh, and perhaps you "free market" TRAITORS need to re-think your posisitons cuz j. bradley delong, professor of economics at the university of california at berkeley and former assistant US treasury secretary during the clinton administration has a new piece on his blog saying NAFTA didn't work! he says: "Having witnessed Mexico’s slow growth over the past 15 years, we can no longer repeat the old mantra that the neo-liberal road of NAFTA and associated reforms is clearly and obviously the right one." you can read the whole post here along with numbers that point to the WIDENING GAP between mexicans and americans:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong51
oh, and see, burns? this is me saying my prez, clinton, was WRONG to back NAFTA. it's called free-thinking. try it sometime. it's wayyy more "free" than the "free market" you repubs claim to love…
October 20th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
"oh, and see, burns? this is me saying my prez, clinton, was WRONG to back NAFTA. it's called free-thinking. try it sometime. it's wayyy more "free" than the "free market" you repubs claim to love…"
What does NAFTA have to do with steel coming from Japan????? NOTHING!!!
October 21st, 2006 at 7:52 am
jeez, burns, you're not very smart, are ya? the fact is he called brown "protectionist" which means, presumably, that bok is a believer in "free trade." so, if he's for that presumably he was/is for NAFTA, as is most of the repub party and YOUR prez. and i pointed out to him that even a clinton-era appointee and ECONOMIST is now admitting that NAFTA has NOT done what they said it would. and see, burns, this also impacts many other things, like immigration, etc. but old bokkie just uses one aspect of it to try and get a zinger on brown, and, per usual, fails miserably.
do ya get it now? oh, and way to ignore that FACT that your guy BUSH approved the tarriffs! do you actually have an intellectually honest bone in your body??
October 21st, 2006 at 9:18 am
Are you that nuts? The subject of Chip's cartoon is steel tariffs, not NAFTA.
Just once admit you went off half cocked.
October 21st, 2006 at 10:43 am
well, i admit i might go off "half-cocked" all the time! haha!
again, what part of this don't you get? tariffs are part of TRADE policy. NAFTA was a TRADE agreement. hence, talking about NAFTA IS talking about trade. i assume everyone besides you, burns, can follow this with ease. did you ever take a logic course in college?
and how come still mum on prez bush's SUPPORT of steel tariffs? CA(F)T(A) got your tounge? (another trade inspired joke…look it up if ya have to…)
and odd how bokkie boy didn't have bushie in the political ad, whoops, i mean, cartoon, with brown? i mean, they both agree on the steel tariffs policy. hmmm? can't hear you…
October 21st, 2006 at 11:10 am
Nafta is USA, Mexico and Canada.
The steel tariffs affected Japan and Europe.
You are so anxious to post to a new cartoon that you ramble about everything but the subject of the cartoon.
Whatever, I'll let someone else be your target for a while.
October 21st, 2006 at 11:30 am
i understand that, burns, as i made abundantly clear in my previous post.
why do you never answer the questions actually put to you by posters? i'm curious.
for example, you STILL have made nary a mention of president bush's SUPPORT of said tarriffs.
are you a coward, burns? are you afraid to answer this question? are you afraid the GOP will find out and revoke your right-wingnut membership card? come on you can tell us…
October 21st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
"for example, you STILL have made nary a mention of president bush's SUPPORT of said tarriffs."
Of course he supported them to protect jobs in the steel mills and mining. He did the right thing for the time. Now he is considering the tariifs again.
I've never been ashamed of any decision made by President Bush. Just ashamed of the previous president who decided to have sex with a kid in the oval office.
October 21st, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Burns, where would you be without Clinton? You'd have to find another reason to live. While no one approves of Clinton's behavior, Monica was 22 and the relationship was consensual.
Clinton's behavior was tacky and indefensible, but Monica was of age. Somehow this is a far greater sin than Bush's irrational and stupid decisions that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, 20,000 wounded American soldiers, billions upon billions of dollars and the destabilzation of the Middle East. This in your mind somehow equals some illict hooter and a pizza. If I had to meet my maker tomorrow, I know which sin I'd rather have to fess up to.
October 21st, 2006 at 4:12 pm
" cost hundreds of thousands of lives, "
Suggest you go back on your meds and come back next year.
October 21st, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Burns, I suggest you consider that if Clinton hadn't had his tryst with Monica, Gore would have beaten Bush easily. Do you feel ashamed about that ?
And by the way, I've been on meds that would bring you to your knees, and make you cry for your mommy. To your sad misfortune, they saved my life.
October 21st, 2006 at 5:31 pm
And right on cue Burns, a story pops up about the Iraqi Prime Minister ordering "the country’s medical authorities to stop providing the organization (the UN) with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable."
Hmmm.
October 21st, 2006 at 7:10 pm
never ashamed of how bush had a DWI? i mean, a guy who does that is a LOT more dangerous that two ADULTS (see monica was in her 20's. hardly a "kid") who have consensual sex. a guy who is driving drunk can kill innocent people, right?
but this is all a smokescreen, per usual from you. the fact is bush LIED as he said he didn't believe in steel tariffs and then capitulated to pressure and then supported them. kinda like when he was AGAINST hgaving a 9/11 commission BEFORE he was for it?
burns, you do not want to get into this kind of pissing match with me. i will bury you on this.
October 21st, 2006 at 11:33 pm
You're a big pussy and can't bury anybody nor your pussy friend Mencken.
Not to speak of the fact that you are both dimented and filled with hate.
October 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 am
Burns, suggest you just ignore their posts. They are both incapable of posting without personal attacks and insults.
October 22nd, 2006 at 3:18 am
"a guy who is driving drunk can kill innocent people, right?"
Ted Kennedy sure did.
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:23 am
Burns, I used to do kickboxing 3-4 times a week with the #2 rated guy in the country so perhaps you'd like to redefine your
definition of pussy. And Slope for some odd reason doesn't consider calling someone a "pussy" a personal attack. Go figure.
Now back to the issue Burns. If we use the start date of March 19, 2003 for the Iraq war and use a very modest casualty number of 100 deaths per day, that puts the approx. number of deaths at 136,800. And while I agree that the 600,000 number that is being suggested is extremely high, it's quite likely that the number of deaths is closer to 200,000. If it isn't there now, it will be in the near future.
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:42 am
wow! touched a nerve, did i, burns?? hahaha
learn how to spell, you moron…it's DEMENTED not "dimented."
yeah, slope, you're right it's me and mencken who engage in personal attacks. can i ask if you are actually able to read?
i'm sorry, sam, when was ted kennedy president? cuz we were talking about the last 2 PRESIDENTS. i know it's hard but try to keep up…
you right-wingers are freakin' PRICELESS! haha!
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Sam, you are proof-positive that some conservatives have the memories of goldfish. Bush and Cheney have three DUI's between them. Every one of George and Jeb's kids have been arrested at one point or another, all for drug or alcohol abuse.
Cheney's daughter is gay which by your and Burns' own definition is an affront to God and humanity.
Why are we wasting our time with this ? To get the attention off Iraq ? Stick to the friggin' issues.
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:21 pm
bravo, mencken. i push burns about bush's flip-flop on steel tariffs, and he brings clinton and monica into it! and then slope says all WE do is attack burns PERSONALLY!
i thought it was fun to debate these right-wingers and use bok's right-wing cartoons as a jumping off point for those debates but now it's just not that fun or constructive anymore because the right-wingers just seem incapable of keeping on point in any debate. it always degrades or burns LITERALLY changes the subject.
when i said they were intellectually dishonest, i was wrong. they are intellectually bankrupt, if these comments are anything to go by…
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:18 am
Here's a perfect example of the Goldfish Memory Syndrome:
STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”
BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.
BUSH ON THE RECORD:
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:20 am
Boys, puhleeze! The messages are being obscured by bravado, smoke and mirrors.
kj-please review your deductive logic "if-then" statements. Maybe you could do a better job of tying NAFTA into the tariff discussion.
Burns-remove the blinders so you can at least consider a well structured argument.
Mencken-I'm sure you are (or were) a tough guy, but that kickboxing post was hysterical! If it's true, you really don't need to post it. If it's not true, think of something else to extoll your manliness. Then we get a vision of something other than Billy Blanks and a room full of Tae-Bo housewives!
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:45 am
"Burns-remove the blinders so you can at least consider a well structured argument"
If there was a well structured argument from kj or Mencken, I will have to admit that I missed it.
Just to be safe, I will ignore any future posts from them.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:21 am
Ramrod, I appreciate your posts here as the voice of reason and moderation, but I've been called a pussy here and before that Mick called me limp-wristed. Enough is enough. My posts are intended to annoy, but what I can't figure out is why they elicit questions about my masculinity. The first rule of marshall arts as I saw it was assume your opponent can kick your ass. The
armchair warriors here should consider doing the same and stick to using their brains.
Disagree with me, call me an idiot or a moron… fine… that goes with the turf. But unless you have the balls to call me a pussy to my face, STFU and stick to the issues.
And Burns, real toughness has nothing to do with one's sexuality or their ability to use their fists. It has to do with mental toughness and agility. Your decision to to ignore certain posters shows neither. I'll refrain from calling you what I was just called.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:33 am
Gee Burns, why are you boycotting Mencken an kj…. it was Larry that got you between the eyes.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Don't drag me into this, you kickboxing pussies!
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Boys, boys. Show some civility. This is a non-contact sport. Geez, if I didn't know better I'd think I was in the halls of Congress!
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
You're not in the halls of Congress until Dick Cheney leaves a post with a few F-bombs in it.
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I believe Cheney's comments are in the last throes…..
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:29 pm
thanks for trying to be a peace-maker, ramrod (anyone else see the irony of guy named "ramrod" being a peacemaker??).
BUT, i stand by my inital post. are tarriffs not part of trade between countries? is it not the platform of the repub part to support "free trade?" didn't this repub-held congress pass CAFTA? so, i fail to see how bringing up NAFTA is somehow not releated to bokkie's cartoon.
btw, mencken, i am a 6', 250lb ex-college football player(only DIV II, alas) who studied kung fu for 4 years. haha! it's all true but i'm SURE most people won't believe me. haha!
oh yeah, STILL waiting on burn's take on bush's flip-flop on steel tariffs…as the stones once said "i am waiting, i am waiting…"
October 24th, 2006 at 5:01 am
Of course NAFTA relates to steel tariffs but you're not really saying anything about either, other than Bush and the Republicans are stupid hypocrits.
Tariffs and foreign trade are complex issues partly because artificially raising the cost of goods always has far reaching consequences that are often at cross purposes with one another.
Is blanket protectionism any better than blanket free trade? Or is it a dilemma, as Bok's cartoon suggests?
October 24th, 2006 at 5:11 am
As long as there are distinct groups of workers in this country it will be a dilemma, but not just Sherrod Brown's to deal with, which Bok appears to be implying. It takes one to know one…. Bok is the ultimate protectionist when it comes to covering Republican ass.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
larry, larry, larry, i gave a link to WHOLE article about NAFTA's failure by an economist. clearly, i am against NAFTA and my pointing out that bush flip-flopped was in direst RESPONSE to bok's BS in his cartoon. i don't really think this forum has shwon itself to be a place for a learned discussion about trade policies! sheesh!
and it's spelled hypocrite, btw…
larry, you have some talent for being funny. if i were you, i'd stick to that…
October 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
kj, my advice would be to lay off the spelling critiques or drop your post into Word to spellcheck it twice before you post.
You left out the "a" before WHOLE ( that sounds bad ), misspelled "direct" and "shown". I know typos are not the same as misspellings but in the end, it doesn't make any difference. I mean, it doesn't disqualify anyone from being The Preznent.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
If I'm sure of just one thing it is that I will go to my grave knowing "hypocrits" was a typo and not a misspelling.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
haha! it was INTENDED as a joke guys. i am a notorious typo guy! i was just trying to make a joke…is this thing on??
October 24th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
getting back to the serious stuff, the johns hopkins team writes a response to the WSJ's editorial attacking their methodology in the iraq "violent deaths" report. pay attention, burns and slope:
Steven E. Moore's Oct. 18 editorial-page commentary "655,000 War Dead?" calls into question the estimate by Johns Hopkins scientists that there have been more than 600,000 "excess" deaths since the U.S. invasion of Iraq relative to what would have been expected from levels of mortality in the 15-month period before the invasion.
We agree with Mr. Moore that a cluster survey is the preferred approach to quantifying post-invasion violent deaths in contrast to counts of deaths from newspaper articles and morgues or not counting at all. Cluster surveys have two components, the number of people included in the survey and the number of points from which these persons were sampled. Mr. Moore's objection is with the number of clusters in the survey, not with the methodology of the survey or the number of people included. Because there were only 47 clusters, he claims one would have "crazy results." Survey experts know that estimates of mortality with 47 or 470 or 4,700 clusters are all unbiased. That is, unlike news reports, surveys accurately estimate death rates. What is different between these examples is the degree of precision in their estimates; the more clusters, the more precise is the estimate if sample size also increases.
What is remarkable about survey methodology is that in addition to a best estimate, it also produces a range of plausible values, that is, an interval that reflects the margin of error in the estimate. Based upon our 47 clusters, the Hopkins team reported a best estimate of 655,000 but we also gave a range of plausible values from 393,000 to 943,000. Had the study used 470 clusters, this range would have been about three times narrower.
While there were 47 clusters in the survey, there were also 12,800 people surveyed, a fact that Mr. Moore omits from his piece. Surveyor researchers use the "effective sample size" defined to be the number of independent people who would give a similar degree of precision as their survey to indicate the "size" of the study. In the Hopkins study, the effective sample size is roughly 3,700 independent people, nearly three times larger than the typical political survey that reports +/-3% that Mr. Moore offers as the gold standard.
We agree that more clusters increase the precision of the result. However, more clusters also mean more risk to the survey team. Our final decision on the number of clusters represented a balance between obtaining a meaningful sample and having survey team members return alive.
We agree with Mr. Moore on the importance of estimating the number of civilian deaths in the conflict, and hope he will join us in our recommendations for an independent body with adequate resources to monitor deaths among civilians in conflict using scientific methods as was done in our survey.
Gilbert Burnham
Shannon Doocy
Les Roberts
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health
Baltimore
October 25th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Here's another version. Notice the number of deaths caused by terrorists and not military.(bombings, executions, beheading)
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
October 25th, 2006 at 3:32 am
Here is another:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24878128.htm
October 25th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
So Compos, is there a number you have in mind that WOULD be too many dead Iraqis ?
October 25th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
This was posted but kj:
"Steven E. Moore's Oct. 18 editorial-page commentary "655,000 War Dead?"
I simply posted links to two sources saying approx 40,000.
If you prefer the 655,000 for whatever your reasons, so be it. I have no number.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
sorry, compos, but i'll go with the doctors at johns hopkins; not because i want a higher number but because they are WIDELY respected in their field AND they answered their critics, like the WSJ, very effectively, imho…those places you sited are not crackpots, by any stretch, but again johns hopkins team seems like the superior group on this topic. but i freely admit i may be wrong.