U.S. Launches Complaint at WTO Over Chinese Export Curbs While Giving OPEC/Saudi Arabia a Free Pass
In its lead front page article yesterday the Financial Times reported that "U.S. lodges WTO case in China dispute". The article goes on to inform that the U.S. together with the European Union lodged a joint complaint with the World Trade Organization over China's export quotas on raw materials. The issue, as seen by both the U.S. and the European Union, was clearly placed into focus by Baroness Ashton, the European Trade Commissioner who was quoted as saying, "The Chinese restrictions on raw materials distort competition and increase global prices, making things even more difficult for our companies."
If this issue is worthy of initiating an action against China, why have similar steps not been taken against OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia OPEC's putative leader, as well the other members of the cartel. Certainly their constraints on the availability of crude oil through their collusion in establishing production quotas grievously distort competition and increase global prices.
Paucity of action under the Bush administration was to be expected, given that administration's ties to the oil industry. Here was an administration whose leadership seemed more interested in doing Saudi Arabia's bidding than looking after the interests of the nation. Even when Congress tried to act forcefully to permit the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to initiate legal action against the likes of Saudi Arabia's national oil company Aramco and other OPEC national oil companies, the Bush White House did all it could to abort these efforts. This in spite of a clear Congressional consensus that would have stripped OPEC members of their "sovereign immunity."
The White House made it clear that it would veto any and all "NOPEC" legislation (the name given to the bill that had OPEC collusion in its sights), and sat happily by as the price of oil shot up to $147/barrel thereby helping to crush the economy, together with a dysfunctional and out of touch Department of Energy mumbling about oil prices being a consequence of "market forces."
The stumbling block conveniently invoked by the White House then was, as mentioned, "sovereign immunity". The same convenient rationale that permitted President Bush to block the release of a 28-page classified section of the 2003 joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept 11 attacks. According to the New York Times yesterday "Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists, but May Never Be Used in 9/11 Suit," the secret section of the report is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers. According to the Times, the Saudis claim that they urged it be made public but President Bush refused to do so. Stage management, or real concern for U.S. interests? We may never know. But we needn't forget that at the time Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to Washington, had virtually unlimited access to the Oval Office and his good friend President George W. Bush.
In the years thereafter the Bush administration moved heaven and earth to sponsor Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO and succeeded when Saudi Arabia was admitted to the august body in December 2005.
The days of Bush are over except for cleaning up the mess he left behind. Certainly President Obama has enough on his plate, but if time and energy can be directed at initiating process against China because of export trade constraints, then certainly action against the OPEC cartel is long overdue. It is time to bring the NOPEC Bill to the fore once again, and this time with a determination to follow through successfully.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
REAL unemployment is DOUBLE the 'official' statistics. GOvernment has been playing major games with all stats for a while now - both parties are to blame.
REAL unemployment should be including 'discouraged' workers - those no longer trying and long off unemployment benefits, as well as those 'self-employed' and actually LOSING money and should account for the vast numbers of UNDER employed - those working part-time involuntarily, those working at jobs far below their qualifications and previous income levels and those working part-time because they can;t find full-time work.
good articles for slow news days: http://www.bit.ly/12NCJR
If the truth were being reported we'd be having riots in the streets. And meanwhile the top execs in banks and brokeragesa that caused such a mess are STILL employed and making millions while laying off THOUSANDS of people that actually do work. If you know anyone in banking that's still employed, odds are they are doing the work of three people so the top execs can show 'savings' and contineu collecting mega-incomes.
If you buy less stuff then you contribute to solving the problem. Most Americans shop for stuff because it makes them feel good. Shopping is recreation!!! Just like gambling!!!
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
This is an excellent article, Mr. Learsy.
Everyone should send this article to their Senators and House members.
Money doesn’t grow on trees for most of America. We sit down at our kitchen tables and write
out checks to the phone-company, electric company, credit card-company, mortgage-company,
and auto finance company every month. We clip coupons and go to the grocery store every
week to put food in the mouths of our children. This is what our parents did before us.
good articles: http://investmintideas.blogspot.com/ recommended
Goldman and Bank of America run the markets along with Geithner, and beagle boy Ben. There
is no free markets, only welfare capitalism and socialism for capitalism.
Obama hasnt stopped Banks from betting on and owning oil futures.
We also have the coming CARBON CREDITS SCAM too.
American's were not willing to take steps to curb oil imports. The most useful of which would have been to raise gasoline taxes. So, we get what we deserve, and whining about Saudi Arabia is pathetic.
What??? Are you dumb, Stevek9???
OPEC is a monopoly. In the US, Monopolies are supposed to be illegal.
We have been the victims of OPEC, the large, international oil companies, speculators and our own government.
If we were to curb usage with high taxes, OPEC would just cut production and prices would still rise.
Europe has high taxes. Gasoline is expensive in Europe. Yet a barrel of oil was near $150.00 in 2008. It was the recession that brought the price down to $35.00 US.
AND THEN THERE IS THE SPECULATION. But I won't say more.
GO TO:
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/659081.html
The link is very informative about speculation in the commodities futures market.
the truth is..., our biggest problem is those greedy specualtors and OPEC
Obama can and will deal with those Bush supporting speculators
But he also most deal with our other great problem -- OPEC
the truth is, there is a conspiracy going on and our fearless Govt. leaders
are afraid to talk about it, let alone deal with it.
the truth is that OPEC can make alot more money selling our
oil to intergalactic Civilations that require vast amounts of oil to
operate their socities. We need to stop those greedy middle easterners
from selling our oil to those creepy space aliens; and then deport or
jail our greedy speculators.
P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if those evil specualtors were
from other worlds.
They could be from the moon. We "know" that because we have never been there.
:-)
maybe if the leader of the most powerful nation on earth bows a few more times before the King of Saud theOPEC will not collude on oil prices
doing business with the chinese comes with the knowlege that they will do things to their own benefit at the expense of whoever... they are looking to build their country after a U.S. model .... a communist capitalist society. they want our products, they want to make our products, they want our jobs, they want us to train them and sell to them and they they want to bury us... financially if not literally. And we, in our short sighted purely economic self interested way have sold them the future... we have sold them our future... they now pollute, and sell us poison products, chinese drywall??? chinese toys for your kids?? chinese tooth paste? chinese dog food for crying out loud! It's all poison and we import it and we sell it and our beneficient mega corporations and small town corner markets sell it to us and we get sick and our dogs die.
Doing business with the US comes at exactly the same expense. That and, oh, sometimes, we will also install a dictator of our liking.
:-)
no... we have laws protecting our workers from hazards and chemicals and unfair labor practices...
some might argue that these laws make our country unable to compete... but those laws were enacted for reasons that are real and viable... our toys are not made with lead based paint and colors, our farm products are not full of poisons (some might also argue this)... and our building products are not full of sulfuric acid ... and we also have trade laws that only we comply with...
so no, doing business with the U.S. is most definitely not the same
It has been our own greed that put China in the drivers seat. CEO's look at the bottom line and that means cutting costs so they went for cheap labor, at the expense of US jobs.
But we as consumers also share blame because we laughed as those saying buy American. I have been a buy American advocate since the 70's still am.
We have the power to change things first demand the the US Government Buys American especially the Defense Department. and we need to buy American.
Then we must flood our Congressman/woman to get oil prices down, it is more about the oil traders than it is OPEC, the IS enough oil in the US to last a long time it just is not getting pumper because oil companies and oil traders want that large profit.
Yes we are to blame for letting Corporate America so big that they do not see us. But we have the power to force change and the time is now for that change.
Where can I buy an American car that gets 50mpg?
:-)
look for a 1957 nash rambler... 50 mpg,
The action against China is in the WTO. That wouldn't apply to OPEC. WTO actions always take a long time. Even if we win, China is likely to do something else to rig the system to achieve its goals. If someone must make WTO noises, fine but it has never been the substitute for real policy. It does work pretty well against us, though. Most Favored Nation treatment disadvantages the U.S. which is both more open than the competition and legalistic. There are any number of barriers a country can erect if it does so quietly and informally.
We have to just decide to eliminate the trade deficit and do what it takes to rejuvenate U.S. industry.
I mostly agree. Although I do have to say that my personal business with China is pretty good. It's not that hard to be competitive over there if you have a product that is unique and world class.
or if you turn a blind eye to child labor and relegious and free speech persecution ,etc. etc.- ahhhh- a capitalist utopia
"Paucity of action under the Bush administration was to be expected, given that administration's ties to the oil industry. Here was an administration whose leadership seemed more interested in doing Saudi Arabia's bidding than looking after the interests of the nation."
This is absolutely absurd.
Why would you say that? It's absolutely true.
No it isn't true. There wasn't a reason to confront Saudi Arabia about not producing enough oil, because there wasn't a shortage of oil in the US during Bush's term and Saudi had been producing near capacity anyway. Oil went up because of a global capacity problem, not a supply to the US problem. Plus, Saudi produces sour crude, not the sweet crude the US needs.
The answer to this is simple -- there is no shortage of oil. There is a glut of oil. The last thing we need is even more oil right now.
The terms shortage and glut depend on the time scale. There is no shortage right now... but only because we have greatly reduced our economic activity and are using a little less oil than before. In the medium term (two to three year time scale) there will be a much smaller gap between production and demand, again, should the world economy recover while even more exporters will have reached their peak production and are beginning to fall off the cliff. And in the longer run, 5-10 years, we are looking at a rather unpleasant supply picture.
Now, this economic downturn has given us a wonderful chance to correct some of the mistakes of the past. People can downsize their energy needs. Local government can implement more efficient transportation options, federal government can turn the US car manufacturers around and implement far reaching structural changes to how the country uses energy and specifically oil.
Mind you, these are only chances. It does not mean we are going to use them. We might end up like the man on the roof in the flood in the joke who rejects all of God's gifts, the boat and the helicopter and who ends up drowning because none of the realistic options was good enough for him.
:-)
Storage for oil at Cushing, OK is full. There are tankers sitting off coasts across the world full of oil with nowhere to go. Plus, we're in peak driving season right now and refiners will start ramping down soon into the fall shoulder season. The point is that there simply is no need for more oil now or anytime soon, so the idea to pressure OPEC or Saudi is not even relevant to economic realities right now.
Just how exactly how are we going to force the Chinese or the Saudis or anybody else to give us these raw materials at the price we dictate them?
Shall we invade them so we can get at OUR oil/anything that somehow magically happens to be in THEIR soil?
Sounds ridiculous? Of course it does. It IS ridiculous.
What we could do is say it's a violation of antitrust laws to conspire to retain high pricing power, and then tack on a charge to them for the violation. Perhaps even jail a few of the worst offenders when they visit the jurisdiction of the US. Of course that would raise the price further as they would be simply pissed off. But then, what have they done for us lately?
Antitrust laws are only effective for companies in the US. You don't have jurisdiction in the rest of the world. The WTO is a mechanism that every country joins by free will. So if you make these things too onerous for countries which signed up for it, they will simply leave and that's that. The result is that, at best, they can give out slaps on the wrist of important members, but there are no truly hurting consequences.
Who are you going to jail? The Chinese premier? That would be a violation of international law and diplomatic procedure. The result would be a declaration of war between us and a billion plus people, something nobody can afford. If you jail random business individuals, the best thing you can achieve is that they won't do business with us. And that we can't afford, either. Walmart (2 million employees and counting) and the rest of our retailers would have no merchandise on the shelves without China. A six month boycott would ruin both countries economically.
"Of course that would raise the price further as they would be simply pissed off."
It would raise the prices for YOU, not them. So are you one of those who want to cut off their own nose to spite another's face? Not really cool, you know.
Sorry... but revenge fantasies do not work in reality.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
