Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (168968)	3/6/2002 3:56:32 PM
From: Selectric II	Respond to of 176387

Dow up 136 on day steel tariff is announced. Maybe tomorrow he'll announce a computer tariff!

To: GVTucker who wrote (168968)	3/6/2002 5:54:11 PM
From: mepci	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

GT: GW's decision was well thought out. I believe it is only temporary. Once foreign companies reduce their production some more we should be back on track. Time will tell.

To: GVTucker who wrote (168968)	3/6/2002 5:57:27 PM
From: John Koligman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

GV - Are you basing your opinion on potential retaliatory measures by other nations or simply on the steel itself?? From what I read this is a three year deal, and parts of it are for only one year, (flat rolled steel??). Can't see that the extra hundred bucks or whatever on a car would make much difference in view of 'rebates galore'... Regards, John

To: GVTucker who wrote (168968)	3/16/2002 5:32:25 AM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Respond to of 176387

GVT: Re: ...I'm kind of surprised there's not more vitriol directed at Bush's most recent move... Someone heard you. But you're ahead than most of Dubya's appointed ranchhands. W should seek advice from you first with regard to economic matters. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Treasury Official Is Said to Fault Steel Tariff Move By JOSEPH KAHN and RICHARD W. STEVENSON WASHINGTON, March 15 — Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill told a foreign policy group this week that he disagreed with the Bush administration's decision earlier this month to impose tariffs on imported steel and that the move would cost more jobs in the United States than it would save, people who heard him speak said today. In off-the-record comments after a dinner speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday, Mr. O'Neill said he was sticking to his long-held position that imposing tariffs risked the nation's interests as the world's leader in promoting free trade, they said. Mr. O'Neill had never made any secret of his philosophical opposition to trade barriers. It was widely known that he had made his views clear during internal administration discussions that preceded President Bush's decision last week to protect the domestic steel industry with tariffs of up to 30 percent. In an administration that prizes loyalty and discretion, Mr. O'Neill has regularly expressed opinions that diverge to a surprising degree from administration policy. In expressing his opinions about the steel issue, Mr. O'Neill was giving voice to the unease of free trade advocates and others, including many Republicans, about the administration's policy. But in doing so before an audience of more than 200 people — even with the caveat that his remarks were not intended for public consumption and that they represented his personal opinion — Mr. O'Neill flirted with openly distancing himself from a sensitive policy decision. Last week, the White House forced the head of the Army Corps of Engineers, Michael Parker, to resign after he suggested to Congress that he opposed the budget cuts the administration had proposed for his agency. According to two people who heard Mr. O'Neill's remarks in person and another who viewed them on a simultaneous Internet broadcast, the treasury secretary strongly emphasized his belief that the administration decision risked more jobs in steel-using industries than it would protect among the long-ailing steelmakers. Some members of the staff of The New York Times are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations. But this article is based on information obtained independently. Three people who heard the remarks and said they were sympathetic to them, said that Mr. O'Neill, in response to a question, also stressed that the treasury secretary had no intention of trying to undermine the administration's policy. Michele Davis, Mr. O'Neill's spokeswoman, said his comments were consistent both with Mr. Bush's policy and with Mr. O'Neill's own judgment that tariffs alone would not solve the steel industry's problems. She said Mr. O'Neill supported temporary tariffs that would give the industry time to slim down and become globally competitive. Neither the Treasury Department nor the spokeswoman for the Council on Foreign Relations would provide a transcript of Mr. O'Neill's remarks or permit a viewing of the webcast of his appearance. Ms. Davis said Mr. O'Neill told the audience that the domestic industry's problems should be addressed in part by reducing global overcapacity in steel making, an effort that Mr. O'Neill has spearheaded for months. The United States has been trying to negotiate a deal with other steel-producing nations to cut back on excess steel production that has driven prices down around the world. Claire Buchan, a spokeswoman for the White House, said, "Secretary O'Neill shares the president's view that the steel industry needs time to do necessary restructuring." The steel tariff decision has been an especially delicate one for this administration. Mr. Bush and his team have often urged other nations to resist protectionist pressures. But they have also face intense pressure from steel companies and their unions. Many steel jobs are concentrated in politically important states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Just before Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, visited Brazil earlier this week, Brazil's president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, strongly criticized the tariffs and said they contradicted the basic thrust of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a regional trade accord that Mr. Bush has urged Latin American nations to join. While in Brazil, Mr. Zoellick defended the tariffs on the grounds that they were necessary for domestic political reasons. "We are committed to moving forward with free trade, but, like Brazil, we have to manage political support for free trade at home," he said. "We have to create coalitions." Mr. O'Neill's remarks were the latest in a series of incidents in which he has lived up to his reputation for speaking his mind — a trait that in Washington may come across as impolitic, out of step or even disloyal. This week, in an appearance before a Congressional committee, Mr. O'Neill, the former chief executive of Alcoa, seemed to support a shift in the administration's policy on allowing American citizens to visit Cuba, causing the White House to issue a clarification saying Mr. O'Neill supported the current policy. Earlier this month, on a visit to the Middle East, he specified a price range for oil, a departure from the administration's usual deference to market forces. Now, with his remark that steel tariffs could result in net job losses for the American economy, he effectively endorsed one of the main arguments made by opponents of the president's decision. Steel-using industries had cited studies suggesting that tariffs would cost anywhere from 7 to 14 jobs for every job they saved. Mr. O'Neill's comments, however hedged, are sure to be seized upon by opponents of Mr. Bush's policy both at home and abroad. The administration has come under heavy international pressure since the decision, with the European Union filing an immediate complaint against the tariffs at the World Trade Organization and demanding compensation for lost sales. nytimes.com