They are just giving money away - so that bankers can get bonuses. Anyway - government purchasing isn't always done on the basis of the lowest price, lots of times other considerations are involved - see things like defense spending, etc.
In the mean time, China's premier is in Europe right now to encourage European export to China. They have procurement team over all Europe to buy goods. They have set the goal of doubling British export to China in 18 months. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090202/wl_uk_afp/britainchinadiplomacytrade_20090202163408 I wonder what do they know that we don't?
Perhaps I'm missing something here but I don't see how targetting how the US government spends money is illegal under the WTO? Does the WTO mandate how governments must spend their money?
I think we knew Obama was a bit anti-free-trade when he was campaigning. I'm not surprised, but I think it'd be shooting ourselves (the country and the world) in the foot to engage in this sort of protectionism again.
Funny how the Dems are scrambling to defend their words. First Robert "Moron" Reich spilled the beans on their plan to lockout white construction workers from the infrastructure pork. Now the Dems want to halt free trade with long time partner Canada in order to appease the cronies in the US Steel Industry. So now we are going to practically discriminate against our lenders, the countries who are in fact paying for all this pork by purchasing US debt. US taxpayers are NOT funding a penny of this pork stimulus. You morons don't even know how the system works. These bailouts and stimulus pork are funded by selling US debt obligations to foreign countries in the name of the taxpayer. Its what allows our government to deficit spend and jack up national debt. So all you protectionist need to learn the ABC of fiscal policy. 1st Rule of Taxation - You can't spend what you haven't collected. Anything else is just debt not income.
LOL - halt free trade with Canada. I'm sorry but you lost all credibility with that stupidity. Not that you couldn't have lost it in other ways with the rest of your post, I just started laughing and stopped reading at that point. You need to learn the ABC's of, well, you actually just need to learn your ABC's...then we'll move on to more intermediate things. Soon enough you'll be reading at a 3rd grade level and will be able to avoid embarrassing posts like this.
Err, no one is halting free trade. When we sell debt to someone else, they are making a profit. They are temporarily providing money, but the US taxpayer has to eventually pay up on that debt, so yes, the US taxpayer is funding all of its governments activities. In the meantime, other countries are profiting from the purchase of various securities, adding to the costs to the US taxpayer. Funny you call others morons and claim they are the ones that don't understand how things work.
There isn’t enough sweetener in the world. With respect to bailout money, however, our banks aren’t in trouble. I’m not sure exactly how they dodged the bullets that brought so many other banks around the world to their knees, but they largely have. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imScyRPnGQU0DtTVXk2j2ha80J5Q I believe most are speaking out against it.
Individual consumers are and should be allowed to spend their money however they like, but large organisations and governments should follow free and fair trade rules
Of course, that is like saying the banks are making a profit when you buy a home. But the bank does not have to lend you the money for you buy a home, just like many banks are doing now these days. The thing is China cannot afford to let US economy die, but I think the US should turn down the anti China sentiment when talking about the stimulus package.
protectionism: Bad idea. Protectionism during a depression: REAAAALLLYY bad idea. though huge trade imbalances aren't good either.
It's also like saying if you have buy a $100 bond that pays 5% interest, you end up with $105 next year and made a profit. Both are true - I'm not sure what your point is. The US taxpayer is the one that eventually pays out the $105 and pays the debt.
Just saying China or any other country does not have to buy US IOUs, just like banks do not have to lend you money.
Oh, absolutely. The bonds are sold on the open market, and their interest rate is priced based on the demand for them. So if China wasn't interested, demand would be lower and the interest rate would be higher. But at the end of the day, whoever buys them, it's the US taxpayer paying for them.
I actually don't have a problem with the requirement in theory. Like others have said, it's not really protectionism because it's just Congress directing how to spend the borrowed money that they're authorizing. However, I'm pretty sure that the provision violates NAFTA, and while laws almost never get turned over for violating the Constitution as written, they do get turned over for violating NAFTA.
However the problem with your thinking is that in reality taxpayers never pay back that money. We only give interest payments on the debt. Sorry to say this but if you study the financial structure of the government and its issuance of debt, then you will find out that it is one big Ponzi scheme. We keep issuing new debt in order to pay off those that have reached maturity. That is why our national debt has risen dramatically over the past 50 years and international holding of US securities has risen to about 25% in recent years. The only thing makings this debt wheel turn is demand because US debt is still considerate the safest in the world. However, once the mighty credit rating of US is downgrade than it will unravel the entire system and lead this country into mediocrity. So the next time you claim taxpayers are footing the bill, go look at the federal budget and total tax revenue. Its simple math, the numbers don't add up.
The government can pay these debts anytime it wants by just printing money. We will be footing the bill along with everyone that lends us money by ways of inflation.
But shouldn't they also be able to decide how to target their spending since they are holding the purse strings? For instance should the government be able to mandate that companies that have government contracts agree to follow non-discrimination policies? Should the government be allowed to target spending towards minority owned businesses? All of those are instances of the government not following fair and free trade rules yet those are all perfectly acceptable.
