I was not happy when Bush announced the steel tariffs, but as a friend pointed out, this was actually a fullfillment of a promise he made to West Virginia voters during the campaign -- that he would enact policies to protect steel industry jobs.
Again, with this, it sounds like a move that violates free market principles, but as others have noted, there may be some complicating issues. But I think this is something I'll keep an eye on. One of the nightly news shows did a story the other night about how the Feds spend a billion or so a year subsidies US sugar producers, keeping sugar prices in the US artifially high. Many candy makers, such as Lifesavers, are moving to Mexico and Candada where they can get sugar cheaper. Michigan offered the company that owns Lifesavers $25 million in tax savings over the next five years to stay, but the company rejected the offer. They will save $90 million in sugar costs over the same five year period. So a few hundred jobs are lost in that community. The sugar producers say it's not their fault, not the fault of the subsidy, but the fault of environmental regulations and high labor prices, but I don't buy it. Not when a company can save nearly $10 million a year on sugar costs by moving to Canada. The government should cease these types of subsidies. And the only tarriffs that should ever be implement is against countries that engage in unfair competitive practices, such as subsidies or forced labor (i.e. China). H. ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
