the faux outrage is perhaps a bit much…
this is crazymaking:
EU attacks ‘Buy American’ clause
The EU has increased its pressure on the US to reconsider the “Buy American” clause in the $800bn (£567bn) economic recovery package now before Congress.
The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill.
A European Commission spokesman said it was the “worst possible signal”.
…
The EU spokesman said Europe would launch a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the clause remained.
“There isn’t a great deal of scope for doing much more, but if America went ahead and did this we would have to take it up with the World Trade Organization,” the European Commission trade spokesman, Peter Power, told the BBC’s Chris Mason in Brussels.
European and Canadian ambassadors to Washington have already warned that the clause could provoke protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves.
EU Ambassador to Washington John Bruton said that, if passed, the measure could erode global leadership on free trade.
“We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis,” he said.
what do they really expect? first and foremost, the u.s. president and congress are responsible to the american people, and secondarily accountable to the voters who put them in office. and they simply will not stand for a $800 billion stimulus bill which a) does not seek to protect those few manufacturing jobs still in the u.s. or b) sends their hard earned tax dollars out of the country.
this bill is not about fixing the global recession, it is about keeping the u.s. out of a seismic economic *depression*.
any other country would do the same - of course it would. is it really that hard to understand?
Like this post
Comment by Tabitha
4.02.2009 @ 02:17 am
Oh, but it’s “different”, Europe is allowed to hold the US to higher double standards. Where’s the eye roll icon when you need it.
Comment by Amity
4.02.2009 @ 07:58 am
I’m reminded of a child who wants her parents to stop interfering in her life but when they do, she gets upset and stomps her feet, saying “Pay attention to meeeeeeee!”
Comment by Amity
4.02.2009 @ 08:00 am
I just read in the paper that Obama backed down. Hmmm…
Comment by Lindsay
4.02.2009 @ 08:26 am
As no-one really knows what to do and are playing it by ear I think the idea is to look at history and so desire America not to go protectionist like it did last time, which failed anyway, for the US as well as the world. And trade is even more interwoven than it was back in the Great Depression.
If America becomes protectionist then other countries which lose out may then go into the same mode thus spiraling everyone down into depression rather than recession, including the people they are supposedly trying to protect.
So then it becomes about politics and what emotions people have in the here and now. So some can cheer because they’re being “protected” from “the foreigners” by their government while those policies may actually end up doing more damage to the population as a whole.
Comment by ian in hamburg
4.02.2009 @ 09:15 am
Lindsay has it right. If every country sets up trade barriers or stops trading based on me-first policies, the downward spiral will be faster and deeper.
Don’t forget as well that the Americans are always one of the biggest boosters of so-called “free trade” when things are going well and it suits their interests, but play up to the nationalistic rabble as soon as the music stops.
Comment by Stacey
4.02.2009 @ 12:16 pm
Ex-trade lawyer hat on: while it seems like a minor thing, in larger context, the buy American clause raises the spectre of Smoot Hawley Act as a major aggravating factor in the Great Depression, and is a totally, totally legitimate issue for trade partners to raise as a potentially major world economic blunder. When I heard about the clause, I was appalled. It is such a bad idea that I don’t have a word for the badness. It’s also arguably in violation of established international trade standards. But mainly, protectionism just doesn’t work — rather, is actively harmful to the *protectionist* country and the whole global system. For one of the G8 to be advocating protectionism should — and legitimately did — freak the rest of the world out.
In summary: extraordinarily bad idea with bad implications for everyone. Obama’s most recent statements against it are absolutely correct — and note that major US-based trade organizations hate it too (US Chamber of Commerce). So while I see how the complaining of the EU and others probably looks, if they hadn’t said anything, it would have been an absolute failure of statesmanship and diplomacy.
Comment by Jen
4.02.2009 @ 17:48 pm
don’t rain on my parade stacey, ian and lindsay!!
okay, i *may* have got this one wrong. shhh, don’t tell anyone!
Comment by Lindsay
4.02.2009 @ 19:29 pm
LOL!
Next time I’ll keep my gob shut
… there’s nothing worse than someone being all rational during a rant, been on the end of that myself! 
Comment by Stacey
4.02.2009 @ 21:59 pm
Heee! Well, to be fair (a) it does just sound like the EU whinging, and (b) the only reason I know otherwise is because I have a degree in this specific thing, so it’s not like it’s really in the public domain!
Also, you are almost always right when I am ranting about something random. You win!