Stephen Metzger

Is U.S. Starting a Trade War?

It is depressing to see the ignorance of many of the respondents to Mr. Brouwer's article. His example of California vs. Michigan is meant to describe the economic benefits of trade and they, as he says, are fully applicable to international trade. You cannot hide this fact by saying the difference is that we are Americans and those others are "fereners". Trade restrictions only benefit special interests, placate the ignorant, and lower living standards. And, Mr. Brouwer is also right in comparing current trends with those of the 1930s. We are repeating the same mistakes of that decade in both domestic and international policy. Of course, we have a President who has little understanding, much less appreciation of American history--even recent history. (Nothing important occurred until he was born, and even then, some very unimportant things happened, because he was only nine years old.)

Is U.S. Starting a Trade War?

Your suggestions amount to the same thing: A restriction on trade. We are repeating the errors of the 30s at home and abroad. Bring on the war (I don't mean trade war).


On Jun 23 02:58 PM Valley Boy wrote:

> According to this author, we are supposed to outsource our manufacturing
> labor and consume and import foreign products. How bright is that?
> No, this activity or attitude cannot be stopped but it can be taxed.
> Some kind of revenue-neutral, carrot-and-stick taxation strategy
> could be brought to bear against what some consider free trade.
> Free for whom? A tax reduction of an equivalent amount should be
> granted to those manufacturers keeping their work within the borders
> of this country and employing legal citizens.

TALF Is Starting to Make Me Mad

Perhaps I am missing something, but Mr. Cohan appears to shift gears midstream in this article. First, he pushes the idea that we need a good recession to readjust our expectations and reset the economic software, so to speak; but then in an interesting exposition of TALF concludes that the scheme may be worth it afterall.

If, however, the economy remains fundamentally weak and pessimistic expectations prevail, the new wave of securitized issues will ultimately fail. As the government loans are no recourse loans, as Mr. Cohan points out, then taxpayers will again be called upon to bail out the government and the Fed.

I don't think you can simply talk about financial markets and the various schemes that are put together to resurrect credit markets without talking about the real side of the economy, especially the impact of potential new taxes on individuals and corporations either directly or indirectly. Ultimately, the benefits of TARP and TALF are squarely dependent on economic growth, and I don't see this as any sort of a priority in this administration.

White House Report: GM Volt Is Not Ready for Prime Time

I would look askance at any report from the Obama administration. The market should decide the fate of lithium ion batteries, not government agencies. Moreover, the troubles of GM and Chrysler have little to do with lithium ion batteries. There is a real disconnect in the logic of this article.

Sick of Hyperbolic Rubish

I suppose everyone will agree that the monetary side of the economy needs fixing, even BO. The auto industry aside, BO seems intent, however, on destroying the real side of the economy. That, as much as or more than the banking crisis, is pushing the market into the doldrums. I am surprised that Mr. Lee does not understand the process of discounting future expected returns.

Government Approves $25B Low Cost Loan Package for Auto Industry

Another, perhaps obvious point to be made is that the loan with its attendant regulations is very likely to "steer" the auto industry in whatever direction Congress wishes to serve political rather than economic purposes. The toxic influence will not be confined to loan in question. Nothing justifies this loan.

Cashing In on the Electric Transport Boom

I find it interesting that almost all the comments churn around the past history of the electric car and few, if any, have to do with the future. I agree with Mr. Gleeson that electric power, pure or hybrid, will drive the future...the near future.

Challenge for Ford and GM: To Stay in Business

Many commercial fleets could be operated on pure electric vehicles, powered by conventional lead acid batteries. Fleets of forklifts do this and the trend to electric forklifts is proceeding apace. Sure, these vehicles would be slower and would have to be recharged on a routine basis that would involve a learning curve and adaptation--but certainly doable. The Big Three should look into this possibility. The fact is that many ICE commercial fleets are used in daily operations well within the range of current battery technology, and when lithium ion batteries become commercially available, there will be very little difference in work capabilities.