# World sanctions against USA trade protectionism **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 27, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874 "2004-11-27T15:00:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/1 "2004-11-27T15:00:19Z")
The USA is fiercely protectionist when it comes to trade, despite whatever international agreements it has made. The softwood lumber dispute is an example of such practices: [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/business/worldbusiness/27trade.html?th](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/business/worldbusiness/27trade.html?th) > [@New York Times](#): > > Earlier this week, the United States filed an extraordinary challenge of a Nafta decision in August that found Canadian lumber exports are not harming American mills. The challenge follows Canadian victories before six different forums in recent years, including the W.T.O. and regional bodies. Canada’s international trade minister, Jim Peterson, suggested this week that the time had come for the United States to give up. “Panel after panel has made it clear that Canadian softwood lumber is not harming the American industry,” he said. “We expect to see duties refunded.” > > Canada is among the countries that has been seeking relief from a part of United States trade law known as the Byrd amendment, which transfers duties collected from foreign imports to American companies. Under the amendment, the United States is proposing to give American lumber companies the $2.5 billion it has collected under the softwood lumber duty. > > Canada threatened retaliation this week, and proposed hitting a variety of American products, from peanut butter to yachts, with 100 percent tariffs. On Friday the W.T.O. approved a measure to let the European Union, Canada and five other countries impose trade sanctions on the United States to compensate for the effects of the Byrd amendment. What is significant is that this is not just one nation trying to duke it out with an economic giant. It is most of the developed world and a fair chunk of the developing world, including the Euroean Union, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/business/worldbusiness/27trade.html?th](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/business/worldbusiness/27trade.html?th) > [@New York Times](#): > > It could set a trend in future disputes, said Lourdes Catrain, a trade lawyer and partner in the Brussels office of the law firm Hogan & Hartson. > > “This is very significant; it sends a very important message to the United States,” she said. “Its trading partners are getting tired of the way the United States behaves.” I am curious to see if the international community will stick together, or if the USA will be able to divide its opposition. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/2 "2004-11-27T16:01:07Z")
I think the solution is obviously clear. We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/3 "2004-11-27T16:41:51Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > I think the solution is obviously clear. We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests. Well you just about killed off one Canadian just now from a laughing fit. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Astroboy14](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@Astroboy14](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astroboy14)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/4 "2004-11-27T16:52:51Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests. We gotta invade Canada _twice_? :eek: Dang! Them people must be tough! ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/5 "2004-11-27T17:06:55Z")
> [@Astroboy14](#): > > We gotta invade Canada _twice_? :eek: > > Dang! Them people must be tough! Okay, _don’t_ make me bring up the torching of the White House. You know, there should be a Law about that - whenever Canadians and United Statesians argue, us Canadians always bring up the “We kicked your ass and burned your White House way back when” argument. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/6 "2004-11-27T17:17:32Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > I think the solution is obviously clear. We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests. I don’t get your reasonning. Shouldn’t invading Syria and Guatemala be the obvious response? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/7 "2004-11-28T02:32:02Z")
As a free-trade supporter (as almost all Republicans are, in THEORY, at least), I find incidents like this embarrassing… though not really surprising. Almost all countries, including those that profess to believe in free trade, find all sorts of reasons to make exceptions for certain domestic industries. Practically every country has industries that make their voices heard at election time, and such industries tend to get subsidies and protection they don’t really deserve. In this case, it’s the American lumber biz. Few countires sing the praises of free trade as loudly as the U.S., so we look worse when we engage in the usual hypocrisy, though. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/8 "2004-11-28T06:23:17Z")
> [@Astroboy14](#): > > > [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > > > We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests. > > We gotta invade Canada _twice_? :eek: > > Dang! Them people must be tough! Once in English, and then again in French. It’s required by federal law. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/9 "2004-11-28T15:16:46Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Once in English, and then again in French. It’s required by federal law. 😛 Tradition is tradition. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/10 "2004-11-28T15:45:34Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Once in English, and then again in French. It’s required by federal law. 😛 Brilliant. Setting a criterion like “you must conduct the invasion in French” is pretty much a guarantee that our southern border is secure. And no, you can’t substitute Inspecter-Clouseau accents. And why _not_ trade sanctions? There’s no reason the United States should get special treatment in the community of nations. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/11 "2004-11-28T16:13:55Z")
On a one-on-one basis, trade sanctions against the USA are no more than a mouse trying to fuck an elephant. If most of the major trading partners unify their sanctions, then I expect that there will be a significant impact on the USA. I just don’t know if the major trading partners will be able to stay unified. Worth trying, though. Time to bring the USA in line with its own agreements. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/12 "2004-11-28T16:39:53Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Almost all countries, including those that profess to believe in free trade, find all sorts of reasons to make exceptions for certain domestic industries. Practically every country has industries that make their voices heard at election time, and such industries tend to get subsidies and protection they don’t really deserve. In this case, it’s the American lumber biz. I recognize that free trade between developed nations high end developing nations usually benefits both parties, and that the lesser party usually benefits relatively more than the greater party. I also recognize that nations may decide to protect certain industries or defend against certain industries. I have no problem with this, and have no bone in disputes concerning whether there should be free trade across the board, or whether there should be certain protections. Where I am concerned, however, is when a nation makes a trade agreement with its eyes open, and then later on ignores the agreement. International trade depends on the good faith of the trading partners and the stability of the agreements. Throwing major agreements to the wind is a bad thing, and simply ignoring some aspects of major agreements while selectively enforcing others is a worse thing. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/13 "2004-11-28T16:45:55Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > On a one-on-one basis, trade sanctions against the USA are no more than a mouse trying to fuck an elephant. I dunno. Slap a bigass export tax on energy flowing south, then sit back and wait for the screaming to commence. It’s true that, although we’re the Americans’ largest export market, we’re so small compared to their domestic market that tariffs are unlikely to be effective. Therefore, if we’re really serious about a trade war we have to hit them in the one sector where they simply can’t decide not to import from us. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/14 "2004-11-28T16:58:10Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > I think the solution is obviously clear. We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests. No, no, no. It’s clear that it’s in _their_ best interests; we would never invade another country for only our own gain! Clearly, they each need a new **democratic** government – otherwise, why would they criticize the world’s greatest democracy? Their governments are repressive; they _must be stopped_. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/15 "2004-11-28T17:14:25Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > Okay, _don’t_ make me bring up the torching of the White House. You know, there should be a Law about that - whenever Canadians and United Statesians argue, us Canadians always bring up the “We kicked your ass and burned your White House way back when” argument. I’ve never understood how Canadians are so delusional as to take credit for the actions of British regulars (the 4th, the 21st, the 44th and 85th regiments). There wasn’t a Canadian further south than Detroit the entire war, as far as I know. Even most of the heavy lifting done in the defense of Canada was done by British regulars. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/16 "2004-11-28T17:27:35Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Where I am concerned, however, is when a nation makes a trade agreement with its eyes open, and then later on ignores the agreement. International trade depends on the good faith of the trading partners and the stability of the agreements. Throwing major agreements to the wind is a bad thing, and simply ignoring some aspects of major agreements while selectively enforcing others is a worse thing. Maybe we should be rethinking our trade deals altogether? I have no problem with low or zero tariffs per se, but I’m uncomfortable with NAFTA, partly because of our economic integration with the US (we should have a free hand when it comes to things like environmental and cultural protection), and partly because I feel that all-across-the-board free trade policies have more to do with ideology than two nations working out their interests mutually. What we should have done is sat down and decided which items could be moved across the border tariff-free. Trade tribunals should not have the right to decide which products should or should not be banned, which services should be open to private competition, and whether a country can specify a minimum amount of local cultural content in magazines, etc. I guess this is a bit of a highjack, but I think it is relevant because Canada, frankly, is making a massive sacrifice for free-trade agreement with the US in terms of political and cultural sovreignty, and our right to protect our environment. If the US doesn’t feel bound by these agreements, clearly they don’t put much stock in them. So why should we feel bound ourselves? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/17 "2004-11-28T18:02:37Z")
Well said, Hamish. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/18 "2004-11-28T18:38:42Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > I think the solution is obviously clear. We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests. Whaddya mean, we _must_ invade? I thought Canada was already being overrun by liberals leaving the USA. At least, all the posts and websites about seceding from the USA and joining Canada leave that impression. But then again, the liberal all promised to leave after Bush won the first time and the lying bastards are still here, so… ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/19 "2004-11-28T19:59:04Z")
> [@Hamish](#): > > If the US doesn’t feel bound by these agreements, clearly they don’t put much stock in them. So why should we feel bound ourselves? Brilliant! Such a change would mean that Canadian natural gas suppliers will no longer be required by law to set their cost-to-consumer at the same absurd rate that relatively NG-poor nations like the U.S. charge, and we can go back to those wonderful days before my heating bills suddenly _doubled_ when that NAFTA clause kicked in a few years ago, and I found that I simply couldn’t _afford_ to leave my furnace on in the winter, and eat, too. I can see it now: Hey, [_Terasen!_](http://www.terasen.com/Inc/Default.htm) Great news! You don’t _have_ to keep charging me back-breaking rates for an essential utility… uh… if you don’t want to. Never mind. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874/20 "2004-11-29T00:14:54Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > Hey, [_Terasen!_](http://www.terasen.com/Inc/Default.htm) Great news! You don’t _have_ to keep charging me back-breaking rates for an essential utility… uh… if you don’t want to. > > Never mind. ☹ Serves ya right for going with natural gas. We ought to return Canada’s orignal source of light and heat — Burning Fenians at the stake. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-sanctions-against-usa-trade-protectionism/276874.md?page=2)