[PEN-L:5170] Re: Re.: Trade Sanctions

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Obviously, nothing is "simple" when it comes to the question of
international trade relations.  The point that the author makes
concerning European luxury cars is valid.  Domestic auto producers
wouldn't automatically benefit from the sanctions against
Japanese-produced autos.

As for the point the most capitalist nations do have restrictions against
imported cars, that point remains (I would suggest) valid.  Many, many
countries also have auto content laws -- that is also a fact that is easy
to demonstrate.  Many capitalist nations also target the auto industry
as part of their industrial policy -- this, similarly, is factual.

A point that I tried to make in the original post is that the Clinton
administration may be using the possibility of a tariff against
Japanese-produced cars as a bargaining chip in the US/Japan trade
negotiations to get the Japanese government to make concessions in terms
of "freeing" the Japanese markets for US corporate imported goods.  This
may, indeed, be a simple explanation -- but it is a possible explanation
nonetheless.

I still believe this issue still comes down to international trade
policies -- free trade or protectionism (or what is sometimes called
"free trade").  IT is UNDENIABLE that most capitalist nations practice
protectionism.  The US government during the Reagan and Bush years mostly
opposed protectionist measures due (in part) to their ideological support
for free trade.

Finally, the source for these postings, was a request for information on
short notice for a radio (or was it TV?) talk program.  I took it for
granted that the person wouldn't have the time for a lengthy explanation
of the topic on the air.  Any points would have to be made simply and
quickly.  I believe I made relevant points in my post that could fit this
time requirement.

On Sun, 21 May 1995, John Rosenthal wrote:

>
>  This is a previous message that seems not to have gone through. Sorry
>  for any possible inconvenience.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  Thanks for Barney Hope's very helpful posting on Japan/US trade issues.
>  I have one question concerning this matter -- for him or anyone else.
>  Why do you suppose the sanctions are being levied on specifically
>  Japanese *luxury* cars?  A susbsequent poster has suggested that the Clinton/
>  Kantor team is just threatening to do what all other governments do
>  in fact whatever might be their ostensible principles: viz. to protect
>  the domestic market from import penetration.  I don't think matters are quite
>  so simple.  It doesn't seem obvious to me that the consumer finding themselves
>  priced out of a Lexus is then going to run to the nearest Cadillac
>  dealership.  So long as duties are levied only on *Japanese* luxury
>  cars and not simply foreign luxury cars tout court, the evident beneficiaries
>  are going to be rather *European* manufacturers, since it is *their*
>  products which are in direct competition with the former.  I can well
>  imagine the joy presently being experienced at Daimler-Benz headquarters.
>
>       I suspect that there is much more going on here than meets the eye.
>  We tend to think nowadays in terms of economic blocs -- the European,
>  the Asian, the American -- each acquiring unity through the directive
>  functions of their respective hegemonic "centers": the German-French "partner-
>  ship", Japan, and the US.  But perhaps this "paradigm-shift" is a
>  bit premature.  Within each of these blocs nations continue to lead a
>  more than just vestigial existence and their ruling elites seek to cut
>  all sorts of deals with the elites of nations -- whether the hegemons or
>  the hegemonized -- pertaining to other "blocs".  So the reality remains in
>  fact "polyvalent", so to say.  It seems to me at the moment the true
>  bons amis are the (ruling elites of the) US and (those of) Germany,
>  which have entered into an era -- whether it will endure for very long
>  is, of course, another matter -- of virtually pursuing a common policy in
>  many areas.  Think only of the Balkans (and with respect to the latter,
>  it is clear that the turning-point in establishing a unified policy was
>  precisely the election of BC).  Perhaps this has something to do with
>  the matter.
>
>       In this whole context, it will be interesting to see what consequences
>  the election of Chirac will bring with it.  For some slight anecdotal
>  evidence that "France" (i.e. the currently dominant elites) will now
>  seek its own "external support" in Asia, cf. the front-page article in
>  Saturday's *Le Monde* on "Les tropismes asiatiques du president".
>
>                                     John Rosenthal
>                                     roslg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>