EU retaliates against US "free trade"

[Jon_in_london]

Yes! the US, that bastion of free trade, has still not removed its illegal tax breaks three years after being told to do so by the WTO.

This is in addition to the US slapping illegal 30% tariffs on steel imports.

Isnt globalisation great? Its one rule for the rest of the world and the US does as it pleases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3243423.stm

[Mr Manifesto]

Sometimes, this sort of action is the only language people understand.

The list, which includes Harley Davidson motorcycles, citrus fruit, and textile products, is said to have been calculated so as to hit hardest regions which support President Bush's Republican party.

It'll be interesting to see if this has an effect. Probably no-one will admit it if does work, though.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Yes! the US, that bastion of free trade, has still not removed its illegal tax breaks three years after being told to do so by the WTO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3243423.stm

“Illegal” tax breaks?

What sovereign body has passed a law here? The WTO? Sorry, but trade organizations that are not governments do not make laws. Poor choice of words on your part.

That said, If we are going to talk about violating international agreements, we should probably look at agricultural subsidies. I suspect if we compiled a list of countries that cheat on those agreements it will be a very long list.

Of course, countries use all sorts of different tricks to close their markets to imports. Tariffs and tax breaks are just the most obvious and unimaginative methods.

[a_unique_person]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list, which includes Harley Davidson motorcycles, citrus fruit, and textile products, is said to have been calculated so as to hit hardest regions which support President Bush's Republican party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, if I was going to hit a Harley hard, the least I'd use is a sledge hammer, preferably a hydraulic press.

[Michael Redman]

Poor EU. :v:

When they play fair, I'll care.

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/hotnews/35h14142318.html
http://www.maketradefair.org.hk/trad/news18_1.html
http://www.metroeireann.com/contentsjuly03/group.htm
http://www.fb.com/news/nr/nr98/nr0507.html
http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/2712_38a.htm
http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwheco20021202a1.html

One rule for the US, and another for the rest of the world. And no rules for the EU, because, as we all know, they're better than everyone else, and whatever they choose to do must be right.

[Chaos]

Frist thing:
Micheal Redman
Just because the EU breaks rules, this doesn´t mean anyone else is allowed to do the same - because the EU isn´t allowed either.

Doubt
The US has always insisted that everyone else does what the WTO says; anyone who disobeyed has faced retributive measures (economically speaking) by the WTO and by the US. So it is only fair that the US should abide by what the WTO says.

And that doesn´t even begin to mention that the WTO has, in effect, always been a tool to keep developing countries from becoming competition to the industrialized countries...

[Michael Redman]

Of course the US should abide the WTO, but so should the EU. And, like the US, the EU thumbs it's collective nose at the WTO when it feels it's interests are better served.

The US insists that others obey the WTO? Really? And the EU doesn't? So it's OK for them to violate WTO rules?

EU appologists are supremely hypocritical in implying that the US is somehow unique in this manner.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Chaos
Frist thing:

Doubt
The US has always insisted that everyone else does what the WTO says; anyone who disobeyed has faced retributive measures (economically speaking) by the WTO and by the US. So it is only fair that the US should abide by what the WTO says.

And that doesn´t even begin to mention that the WTO has, in effect, always been a tool to keep developing countries from becoming competition to the industrialized countries...

The problem here is that everyone is pointing fingers and acting as if their countires are not in violation.

So lets look at how one EU member dealt with a problem in their steel industry.

Ever heard of Usinor Sacilor? It is the French Steel company and it is owned by the French Government. Their mills failed as business. Rather than use sanctions, they moved what was left from the public sector into a government controlled business. Where are the other EU members protesting this extreme violation of the WTO?

Now just for reference, I do work in the US steel industry. It appears that some enterprising Russians have found a great way around the tariffs. If all goes well, my employers will sell us to a Russian steel firm before January 1st. What would the EU say if the US government nationalized us instead?

[WildCat]

The steel tariffs were a terrible idea, and not just from the free trade standpoint. 200,000 jobs were lost in US steel-using industries as a direct result of the tariffs, (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett033103.asp) in an attempt to "save" 20,000 steel manufacturing jobs. Something for protectionists to chew on.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

EU appologists are supremely hypocritical in implying that the US is somehow unique in this manner.

Can you give an example of where the EU has for three years refused to comply with a WTO ruling? Can you give an example of the WTO giving permission for other countries to impose sanctions as a result?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Can you give an example of where the EU has for three years refused to comply with a WTO ruling? Can you give an example of the WTO giving permission for other countries to impose sanctions as a result?
I've got a vague recollection of something related to GM products. Or it could be that the EU is obeying the principle of the WTO ruling, but is using a wrangle over labelling to avoid actually implementing it.

I dunno, I guess I should be happy about the WTO's decision wrt the US, but overall imo it just shows the WTO up to be what it is; a privileged boys' club with no real concern for the actual issues its supposed to address.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doubt


“Illegal” tax breaks?

What sovereign body has passed a law here? The WTO? Sorry, but trade organizations that are not governments do not make laws. Poor choice of words on your part.

That said, If we are going to talk about violating international agreements, we should probably look at agricultural subsidies. I suspect if we compiled a list of countries that cheat on those agreements it will be a very long list.

Of course, countries use all sorts of different tricks to close their markets to imports. Tariffs and tax breaks are just the most obvious and unimaginative methods.

The WTO is an organisation that the US voluntarily belongs to. It is quite free to leave at any time. The tarrifs are levied by the importers of the US goods, and they have the right to make them whatever they want them to be.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Can you give an example of where the EU has for three years refused to comply with a WTO ruling? Can you give an example of the WTO giving permission for other countries to impose sanctions as a result?

The EU as a whole provides massive subsidies to inefficient farmers. Now, this may or may not be a bad thing, but it does breach the spirit of free trade.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The EU as a whole provides massive subsidies to inefficient farmers. Now, this may or may not be a bad thing, but it does breach the spirit of free trade.

Indeed...

As well as heavily subsidizing aeronautics industry, which as the Concorde showed didn't work out well.

I don't know there is something about a kettle and a pot and black.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Indeed...

As well as heavily subsidizing aeronautics industry, which as the Concorde showed didn't work out well.

I don't know there is something about a kettle and a pot and black.

As opposed to the US which subsidises its civil aircraft industry via the usual means (expensive defens(c)e contracts)

The reason protectionism sticks in my craw is that each side insists that their trading partners observe free trade whilst maintaining their own trade barriers.

The reason that people get upset with the US is that they are teh most vociferous

[Drooper]

Trade wars are exercises in stupidity.

Every action imposes a cost on yourself. These latest EU initiatives exert a cost on the people of Europe. In the same way the previous US actions imposed a cost on Americans.

stupid, stupid stupid

The best analolgy I could think of is a gangster trying to punish someone by chopping off his fingers, but the only way he can do it is to hold his hand over that of the victim. When he chops of his victim's fingers he chops off some of his own as well.

"That showed him!!" :rolleyes:

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Can you give an example of where the EU has for three years refused to comply with a WTO ruling? Can you give an example of the WTO giving permission for other countries to impose sanctions as a result? Are you claiming that the EU is blameless, and therefore the one sided criticism isn't hypocracy? If not, then I fail to see your point. If so, then I see no value in further discussion.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper
Trade wars are exercises in stupidity.

Every action imposes a cost on yourself. These latest EU initiatives exert a cost on the people of Europe. In the same way the previous US actions imposed a cost on Americans.

But there must be some kind of rational self-interest at the heart of such actions, i.e. that the benefit of taking such action is worth its cost, or at least that the cost of such action is less than the cost of not taking such action?

For instance, the British Empire used rather, ahem, restrictive trade practices on its colonies to force them into buying British goods which would have been cheaper to produce and purchase locally, and as such would've benefitted the British consumer more. But this would have led to the running down of British industries which would have had a far greater economic and political cost (or something like that).

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Can you give an example of where the EU has for three years refused to comply with a WTO ruling? Can you give an example of the WTO giving permission for other countries to impose sanctions as a result?


The EU banana dispute, the EU bef dispute (that was a good one - even the European Court of Justice ordered the EU to comply).

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

But there must be some kind of rational self-interest at the heart of such actions, i.e. that the benefit of taking such action is worth its cost, or at least that the cost of such action is less than the cost of not taking such action?

For instance, the British Empire used rather, ahem, restrictive trade practices on its colonies to force them into buying British goods which would have been cheaper to produce and purchase locally, and as such would've benefitted the British consumer more. But this would have led to the running down of British industries which would have had a far greater economic and political cost (or something like that).


If it in some way was a very short-term punishment strategy that led to freedom of movement of goods and services, you might be able to make the case. However, no country has exhibited that level of faith in free trade.

On you second para, this is known as Mercantilism. This was the belief, especially in the 18th century. Economics has come a long way since then, unfortunately, politicians and general knowledge of economics haven't.

It is in fact lose/lose.

I don't have time at the moment, but I will return and illustrate why this is so.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by The Don


As opposed to the US which subsidises its civil aircraft industry via the usual means (expensive defens(c)e contracts)

The reason protectionism sticks in my craw is that each side insists that their trading partners observe free trade whilst maintaining their own trade barriers.

The reason that people get upset with the US is that they are teh most vociferous

You are correct.

I always said that subsidizing agriculture, something that EVERY First world country does (i.e. Japan, US, EU, Australia, etc.) I think this is the most legitimate complaint every Third world country can complain about, because this would be the area they could be competitive.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by The Don


The reason that people get upset with the US is that they are teh most vociferous

Maybe...

When I read the "Guardian" or other European newspapers, they often complain about how America supports evil dictatorships by trading with them.

Yet I recall in the early 1980s many Western European countries cutting a sweetheart deal with the Soviets over an oilpipeline in Siberia as they were getting ready to crush Solidarity in Poland.

Not that I care per se, but are many EU countries aware that they are doing the same economic practices the US does while they are stating how horrible they are?

Is it just because the US is the "vociferous?"

[Richard G]

Uh...the U.S. rules itself, not the rest of the world. Even though that burns the worlds ass. Soverignty is great isn't it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
Uh...the U.S. rules itself, not the rest of the world. Even though that burns the worlds ass. Soverignty is great isn't it?

Yet the US has bases in about 60 countries. What threat is the US defending Italy from, for example?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

But there must be some kind of rational self-interest at the heart of such actions, i.e. that the benefit of taking such action is worth its cost, or at least that the cost of such action is less than the cost of not taking such action?

For instance, the British Empire used rather, ahem, restrictive trade practices on its colonies to force them into buying British goods which would have been cheaper to produce and purchase locally, and as such would've benefitted the British consumer more. But this would have led to the running down of British industries which would have had a far greater economic and political cost (or something like that).

I said I would return to this.

Restricting or distorting your foreign trade leads to lower national income. The economic theory is that of "relative comparative advantage". This means that in a market based economy, with free movement of goods and services, production tends to concentrate more in those areas that are relatively more productive than others, when compared with the same relativies in other economies. Think of it as doing what you do best. Of course, this process entails trading - exporting and importing, both acts are of benefit. The theory is not contested in the field of economics.

To get you mind around this, think of your own behaviour. Do you grow your own vegatables? Do your service your own car? Did you build your own house? Each of these things represents an import to you. Are you worse off because you don't do these things yourself, but instead import them? Would you be better off if you decided to stop importing all these goods and services and did them yourself?

The answer is no. you would be worse off. The reason is because you would have to divert you time and resources away from things you are better at doing in order to be self sufficient. By spending more time doing what you are relatively better at, you can earn income (export) and pay for those things you are less productive at producing yourself (import).

The process is no different for a nation. In fact a nation is a purely arbitrary construct. Think of US states or UK regions. Would the inhabitants of Yorkshire increase their incomes by stopping any import of goods from other parts of the UK and instead produce them themselves. No, because they would need to spend less time and devote less capital to the things they are better at in order to do this.

I hope now this makes some intuitive sense to you.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Yet the US has bases in about 60 countries. What threat is the US defending Italy from, for example?

You constantly pull this old canard out...

Has Italy formaly asked the US to leave?

The US has been scaling back bases since the Cold War.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Drooper
Restricting or distorting your foreign trade leads to lower national income. The economic theory is that of "relative comparative advantage". This means that in a market based economy, with free movement of goods and services, production tends to concentrate more in those areas that are relatively more productive than others, when compared with the same relativies in other economies. Think of it as doing what you do best. Of course, this process entails trading - exporting and importing, both acts are of benefit. The theory is not contested in the field of economics.
There you go, making sense again. ;) And an excellent example of why trade barriers hurt the very countries that enact them. It's also a big reason Japans' economy has been stuck in a rut for the last 10 years or so. They'll stay there w/o a drastic overhaul of their economic model to be more friendly to imports.

Clinton's greatest legacy was the implementation of NAFTA, and he had to fight his own party to do it. You still see Dem politicians talk of this as if it were a bad thing.

There is a bewildering lack of basic economic knowledge among the general population these days, it really should be taught in high school. Too many politicians don't have a clue either, thankfully they saw fit to keep most of the US economy under the control of the Fed, which is largely autonomous.

[schplurg]

Yet the US has bases in about 60 countries. What threat is the US defending Italy from, for example?
Exactly! See how good it's working! Heh...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper


I said I would return to this.

Restricting or distorting your foreign trade leads to lower national income. The economic theory is that of "relative comparative advantage". This means that in a market based economy, with free movement of goods and services, production tends to concentrate more in those areas that are relatively more productive than others, when compared with the same relativies in other economies. Think of it as doing what you do best. Of course, this process entails trading - exporting and importing, both acts are of benefit. The theory is not contested in the field of economics.

To get you mind around this, think of your own behaviour. Do you grow your own vegatables? Do your service your own car? Did you build your own house? Each of these things represents an import to you. Are you worse off because you don't do these things yourself, but instead import them? Would you be better off if you decided to stop importing all these goods and services and did them yourself?

The answer is no. you would be worse off. The reason is because you would have to divert you time and resources away from things you are better at doing in order to be self sufficient. By spending more time doing what you are relatively better at, you can earn income (export) and pay for those things you are less productive at producing yourself (import).

The process is no different for a nation. In fact a nation is a purely arbitrary construct. Think of US states or UK regions. Would the inhabitants of Yorkshire increase their incomes by stopping any import of goods from other parts of the UK and instead produce them themselves. No, because they would need to spend less time and devote less capital to the things they are better at in order to do this.

I hope now this makes some intuitive sense to you.
Thanks Drooper, but no it doesn't... There's a few points I'd like to clarify. Does this theory assume I'm doing what I do because that's what I do best (rather than say, because this was what was available at the time), and also that it's an either/or situation (I can continue doing what I do, or I can provide these imports for myself)?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thanks Drooper, but no it doesn't... There's a few points I'd like to clarify. Does this theory assume I'm doing what I do because that's what I do best (rather than say, because this was what was available at the time), and also that it's an either/or situation (I can continue doing what I do, or I can provide these imports for myself)?

The theory doesn't "assume" anything. These are results.

I thought it was pretty clear.

Let's see.

I don't know what you do. But let's say you are an accountant. You trade your time and skills for some payment (export), that you then take down to the supermarket to buy some food (import). If you are of the mercantilist bent, you view these imports as a problem - you want to provide for them yourself.

To do this you need some arable land, So you need to invest some money in this. Where do you get this capital? My guess is that you own your own apartment/house and have a mortgage? Well, get the arable land you need to sell your house and move into something smaller. If you are renting you need to do the same thing to free up some cash flow to rent some land.

Next, you need to invest in seed, equipment, livestock, slaughtering facilities, more refrigeration etc.. This also takes capital, or cashflow.

Next, you need some time to do the farming. You have to cut back you hours as an accountant to do this.

Then you work out out the benefit of doing this (savings on importing food), balanced by the cost, less income from being an accountant (less exported), reduction in the imputed rental value of your larger house that you needed to give up (less product to domestic demand). If you are better off, then it is because in relative terms, you are a better farmer than you are an accountant. If you are worse of, you are a better accountant than you are a farmer.

This is a perfect analogy for what happens at a macro level. If a country has a relative comparative advantage as an agricultural commodity producer, that is where there will be a higher return for labour and capital. However, the labour and capital is finite and cannot then be used in other areas.

Without obstruction, the resources allocate themselves, to where there is the relatively better return. Goods and services from areas where there is a relatively lower return can be imported instead.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper


The theory doesn't "assume" anything. These are results.

I thought it was pretty clear.

Let's see.

I don't know what you do. But let's say you are an accountant. You trade your time and skills for some payment (export), that you then take down to the supermarket to buy some food (import). If you are of the mercantilist bent, you view these imports as a problem - you want to provide for them yourself.

To do this you need some arable land, So you need to invest some money in this. Where do you get this capital? My guess is that you own your own apartment/house and have a mortgage? Well, get the arable land you need to sell your house and move into something smaller. If you are renting you need to do the same thing to free up some cash flow to rent some land.

Next, you need to invest in seed, equipment, livestock, slaughtering facilities, more refrigeration etc.. This also takes capital, or cashflow.

Next, you need some time to do the farming. You have to cut back you hours as an accountant to do this.

Then you work out out the benefit of doing this (savings on importing food), balanced by the cost, less income from being an accountant (less exported), reduction in the imputed rental value of your larger house that you needed to give up (less product to domestic demand). If you are better off, then it is because in relative terms, you are a better farmer than you are an accountant. If you are worse of, you are a better accountant than you are a farmer.

This is a perfect analogy for what happens at a macro level. If a country has a relative comparative advantage as an agricultural commodity producer, that is where there will be a higher return for labour and capital. However, the labour and capital is finite and cannot then be used in other areas.

Without obstruction, the resources allocate themselves, to where there is the relatively better return. Goods and services from areas where there is a relatively lower return can be imported instead.
Thanks Drooper. This is a lot clearer than your previous explanation. Still seems to assume that I'm an accountant (for example) because I'm a better accountant than anything else... But I guess if you're talking macro-level effects, I'm an accountant because there's a demand for one, not because I'm a better accountant than farmer? Is this what you mean by "resources allocate themselves"?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thanks Drooper. This is a lot clearer than your previous explanation. Still seems to assume that I'm an accountant (for example) because I'm a better accountant than anything else... But I guess if you're talking macro-level effects, I'm an accountant because there's a demand for one, not because I'm a better accountant than farmer? Is this what you mean by "resources allocate themselves"?

Pretty much. It mean's you're an accountant because your are more productive as an accountant than as a farmer.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper


Pretty much.
Great!
It mean's you're an accountant because your are more productive as an accountant than as a farmer.
Okay, you lost me again. Sorry! This seems like an assumption, because how do I know until I've tried? Unless you mean I'm more productive as an accountant because there's no demand for farmers?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Isnt globalisation great? Its one rule for the rest of the world and the US does as it pleases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3243423.stm

Jon, you are so silly! Most Americans EXPECT to enjoy a double standard. (And cannot understand why the rest of the world has a problem with that...) We want democracy around the workd but we don't want other countries (such as France/UNSC veto threat) to oppose us.

The United States: We may be only 5% of the world's population, but we try not to act like it.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Great!

Okay, you lost me again. Sorry! This seems like an assumption, because how do I know until I've tried? Unless you mean I'm more productive as an accountant because there's no demand for farmers?

This is an analogy remember. Don't get carried away. You=Entire Economy. Accountant=All Accountants, Farmers=All Farmers.

So to bring it back to the real world, read it as: "there will be profit incentive (because of the relative productivity) for some people to be farmers rather than accountants (or whatever else)".

Also, note that the demand for accountants, farmers or whatever is the result of the productivity of those areas of economy. If farming creates a return, there will be demand for farmers.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper


This is an analogy remember. Don't get carried away. You=Entire Economy. Accountant=All Accountants, Farmers=All Farmers.

So to bring it back to the real world, read it as: "there will be profit incentive (because of the relative productivity) for some people to be farmers rather than accountants (or whatever else)".

Also, note that the demand for accountants, farmers or whatever is the result of the productivity of those areas of economy. If farming creates a return, there will be demand for farmers.
Phew! Gotcha now. Thanks Drooper!

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Jon, you are so silly! Most Americans EXPECT to enjoy a double standard. (And cannot understand why the rest of the world has a problem with that...) We want democracy around the workd but we don't want other countries (such as France/UNSC veto threat) to oppose us.

The United States: We may be only 5% of the world's population, but we try not to act like it.

I realize being a "useful idiot" is much easier, but you might want to actually read this thread and come to a better understanding of the trade issue.

It is not as black/white as you seem to imply especially with the EU.

[Charlie Monoxide]

The US has been doing the same thing with Canada for years. Quite frankly there's really not much that can be done about it.

Charlie (Canada's sore butt) Monoxide

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Phew! Gotcha now. Thanks Drooper!

Great. I had come back with a mathematical example to illustrate the way relative comaparative advantage works.

What the hell I'll give it to you anyway, because nothing beats the proof.


Imagine a simple world with two economies, A and B and two types of output (or products), Widgets and Gadgets. (W and G).

Now suppose that:

- in economy A it takes 1 hour to produce a Widget and 2 hours to produce a gadget.
- in economy B it take 2 hours to produce a Widget and 3 hours to produce a gadget.


Economy A can do everything more cheaply in this world than economy B. Sound familiar? (hint: imports=third world sweat shops "stealing" jobs). Surely B needs to protect its domestic Widget and Gadget industries from the cheaper competitors abroad!!! Let's see.

If A and B do not trade with one another, over a 40 hour week:

- economy A can enjoy output (=income) of up to 40 W, or 20 G, or an linear combination of the two (1W+2G=40).
- economy B can have a maximum ouput 20 W, or 13.33... G, or any linear combination (2W+3G=40).

one example might be economy A can produce 30 Widgets and 5 Gadgets, while economy B could enjoy the ouput of 10 Widgets and 6.333.. Gadgets.


Now let them trade and you could have the following outcome:

- economy A produces 40 Widgets and no Gadgets.
- economy B produces no Widgets and 13.3333 Gadgets.

then they trade:
A pays 10 Widgets for 6.3333 Gadgets.
B pays 6.333 Gadgets for 10 Widgets.

which leaves
- A enjoying the output (=income) of 30 Widgets and 6.33... Gadgets. (previously 30W and 5G)
- B enjoying 10 Widgets and 7 Gadgets (previously 10W and 6.33...G)

Both A and B are better off. I'm sure you could run the numbers to show that A and B can increase both their Widget and Gadget consumption, but this was just the simplest example.

Conversely, starting from the trade position, if economy B tried to protect its Widget industry by restricting imports of gadgets, or placing tariffs on them, both it and economy A would suffer - you should be able to show that.


This is the way trade works - relative comparative advantage (or 2+2=5).

Although econonomy A had an absolute advantage over economy B, compared with economy A, economy B had a relative advantage at producing Gadgets (needing only 3/2 times the resources need to produce a Widget, compared with 2/1 times). So with B concentrating on Gadgets and A concentrating on Widgets, total output is higher under trade. This additional output (or income) is shared between the two.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper
[Maths stuff]
Thanks again Drooper. I'll have fun playing with this. Co-incidently, I was watching an article on Newsnight last night about the cost to the US of their trade tariffs on steel imports. IIRC, the figures went like this; the benefit to the steel production industry was about USD6m. The cost to the manufacturing industry (mostly car makers) were job losses of approx. 10x greater than were saved by tariffs in the steel production. The cost of the tariffs overall to the US was about USD65M (incl. lost revenue on the part of the manufacturing industry). But strangely enough, the US government benefitted from collected tariffs by the same amount...

(hint: imports=third world sweat shops "stealing" jobs).
You'd think if they were going to "steal" jobs, you'd think they'd pick better ones to steal than meagrely paid manufacturing work, huh? ;)