[PEN-L:5194] Re: Re.: Trade Sanctions

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

As I remarked in a previous post, nothing is simple when it comes to
international trade relations.  On that point, at least, John Rosenthal
and I can agree.

The "little spate" of postings has, I believe, been useful.  Undoubtedly,
the Clinton administration has targeted Japanese-produced luxury cars for
a variety of reasons.  "Geo-political manuevering" is most certainly, as
John has suggested, not something "to be sneezed at."  I believe that
domestic political factors are also relevant (as Doug and Justin have
suggested), as is foreign direct investment (suggested by Rakesh), as is
the mark-up on luxury cars (suggested by Anthony D'Costa), and the
refusal of the Japanese government to accept any quantitative targets
proposed by the US government negotiators (as was suggested by Iwao
Kitamura).  There are indeed no simple explanations that answer all of
the questions related to this issue.

I accept John's claim that he was not trying to be "malicious."   It's
not an issue of personalities -- its an issue of politics and economics.
I believe that the contributions that John and the rest of us have made
to this topic has broadened our understanding of this issue.

I still want to hear what the UAW has to say on this topic.  We must not
forget that while capital is concerned with profitability, the standard
of living and employment of workers -- both here and abroard -- will be
impacted by whatever trade policies are chosen by the US government.