se repeta criza economica din 29-33?

Hmmm... Nu tocmai americanii erau cei care in lunile trecute tot faceau galagie cum ca nu e bine sa se treaca la protectionism? Iete ca si de data asta chestiile astea sunt valabile doar cand e vorba de ceilalti, dar nu si cand e vorba de Unchiu' Sam, care e mai "special" decat ceilalti.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/7866900.stm

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 Obama administration could send out.

The EU will launch a complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) if the clause remains, the spokesman said.

The EU and Canadian ambassadors to Washington have already warned that the clause could promote protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves.

The rescue plan has already been approved by the US House of Representatives and is under discussion in the Senate this week.
...
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 Organisation," the European Commission trade spokesman, Peter Power, told the BBC's Chris Mason in Brussels.

British Conservative Members of the European Parliament warned of the dangers of "a new economic iron curtain" being drawn across Europe.

The clause "sends a terrible protectionist signal to the rest of the world, and particularly the EU," said Syed Kamall, the Conservative international trade spokesman in the European Parliament.

Si va mai aduceti aminte de "lectiile" pe care romanii le tot primeau prin anii '90, dar si dupa aceea, cum ca nu conteaza ce nationalitate au cei ce detin firmele atata timp cat vin cu investitii si ca cei care urlau "nu ne vindem tara!" erau cica niste idioti?
Iata ca apar acum niste reactii de genul "de ce ne-am vandut tara?"(e drept ca intr-o forma mai subtila si mai pe ocolite decat la noi) tocmai unde nu m-as fi asteptat sa vad lucrul asta, la anglo-saxoni:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...don_effect.html

Almost exactly two years ago, the chief executive of Rolls-Royce - the UK's most successful manufacturer - gave a stark warning about the risks to the UK of the government's "everything's-for-sale" industrial policy.

Sir John Rose told the FT: "It is pretty obvious that if businesses are not from a particular country, and the brand, and the routes to market and the intellectual property and everything else are vested somewhere else, then any decisions that are made about investments and dis-investments will have a national flavour. They are bound to, it is human nature."

This was so against the political and industrial consensus at the time, it was as if Sir John had blown a raspberry at the Queen.

.....

Today, however, the nationality of businesses suddenly seems more important.

As Rose said, it is human nature for a business with operations all over the world to favour its home country when making decisions about where to expand - or, as in the current horrible economic climate, where to cut.

So it should be no surprise that an Italian company IREM, hired by Total of France on a construction project in Lincolnshire, should itself be employing Italian workers. In a way it would have been more surprising, at a time when money is tight all over the world, if IREM had shunned its own people and had hired new British workers.

And British ministers can't complain about the behaviour of Total or IREM, because it's been an article of faith for them that an open economy is a successful economy - which is why Peter Mandelson, the Business Secretary, hasn't complained about them.

The UK is an outlier in the degree to which it has put all its assets in the shop window and welcomed almost all and every possible overseas buyer of its companies. Even in the US, the great champion of the market, there are many more restrictions on the sale of businesses to foreign interests.

But Wimbledonisation - the notion that Britain is the winner even if none of the economic players are actually British - became official dogma.

As the UK sold its power industry, its few remaining car makers, its merchant banks, and its airports, the theory was that it would gain access to top quality management from abroad and lots of lovely cheap capital from foreign sources.

British consumers would benefit from the lower prices that would be the consequence of overseas businesses' deployment of this low-cost capital.

The money the UK received for its corporate trophies would be reinvested to create the trophies of the future.

And British businesses would shape up thanks to the more intense competition they faced.

So for years, the UK could look down its nose at those countries that took patriotic pride in the size and success of their companies.

The UK didn't care that not a single leading investment bank in the City of London was British, or that its airports were owned by the Spanish, or that every single mass-market car was made by the Japanese, or the Americans or the Germans, or that its power was supplied by continental interests.

The growth rate of the relatively open British economy went up a gear and unemployment fell - while unemployment in the more closed German and French economies remained resolutely high and their growth was more lacklustre.

But there was always a doubt - and one which I raised in this blog - about whether the openness of the UK economy would serve the British people quite so well when the economic going became tougher.

We'll know soon enough whether those fears were legitimate.

What we know already is that the shortage of credit is worse here than in many other countries because a disproportionate number of foreign banks supplied loans to UK households and businesses - and they've gone home, taking their credit with them.

By contrast, at the World Economic Forum that closed yesterday, the Indians and the Chinese were swaggering about how they've benefited in the global recession from retaining domestic control of their important industries, especially banking.

This is not to argue that a return to protectionism - the erection of national barriers against trade and flows of capital - would be anything other than disastrous, for the UK and for the world.

History does indeed tell us that protectionism in a worldwide downturn is the shortest route to slump and depression.

But, as Sir John Rose said two years ago, if Britain has become a giant "aircraft carrier" for foreign companies, jobs won't naturally go to British workers - unless British workers have a massive competitive advantage.

.....

Or to put it another way, even if the British shouldn't weep about not winning at Wimbledon and should celebrate that it's the best tournament in the world, we should aspire to be a nation of players, managers and umpires - not a nation of ball boys.

cardinal, on Feb 3 2009, 12:53, said:

in fapt nu nenea obama ci colegul lui de partid, nenea bill care nirvanizat de monica a pornit politica "o casa pt fiecare american" si asa s-or dat o gramada de credite la toti puturosii...

iar citatul ala care i se atribuie lu nenea marx se pare ca nu-i tocmai al lui.

Edited by Fane, 03 February 2009 - 14:48.

In concluzie la ce am scris mai sus, apare o dilema care cred ca poate avea un raspuns adevarat din doua posibile:

1. Americanii sunt niste prosti protectionisti de vin cu idei de genul "buy american", iar englezii sunt si mai si de au ajuns sa se planga ca si-au vandut industria si bancile investitorilor straini.
2. Nu americanii si nici englezii sunt prosti pentru ca intr-adevar nationalitatea investitorilor si patronilor conteaza, ci romanii sunt cei mai idioti oameni din toata lumea pentru faptul ca au inghitit galusca aia cu "hai sa vindem tot ce avem pe nimic investitorului strain, pentru ca el vine cu know-how si malai si face rahatu' praf astfel incat noi sa o ducem bine, nu ai lui".

Mie unul mi se pare ca mult mai probabil este adevarat raspunsul al doilea, pentru ca pe americani si pe englezi chiar nu ii cred a fi niste prosti.
De altfel ironia situatiei ar fi putut fi sesizata inca de anul trecut, atunci cand au inceput bail-out-urile.
Nu mai tineti minte cum urlau prin anii '90 unii vajnici adepti mioritici ai capitalismului chestii de genul: "Cum sa subventioneze statul roman gaurile negre din industria romaneasca, de-alde Roman, Tractorul Brasov, Dacia etc.? Lasati piata sa decida daca vor supravietui sau nu!"? Iar atunci americanii si altii de prin vest ii mangaiau pe cap pe respectivii si ziceau :"Good boy! Good boy!"
Iar incepand din toamna anului trecut Unchiu' Sam face exact ceea ce recomanda acum un deceniu sa nu se faca la noi, pompand bani publici ca sa isi apere industria autohtona producatoare de masini(vezi cazul imprumutului acordat recent) sau pe cea producatoare de otel & stuff("buy american" ).

Cu alte cuvinte suntem ai mai cretini de pe planeta asta pentru ca am pus botul la niste texte primite de la altii care in conditii de criza fac exact pe dos fata de ceea ce ne recomandau.  

Edited by jormungandr, 03 February 2009 - 14:54.

jormungandr, on Feb 3 2009, 14:52, said:

Chiar ai impresia ca Roman,Tractorul nu mai faceau fata la atatea comenzi in anii '90 incat trebuia statul sa le ia in brate?
De ce nu le-au luat angajatii atunci, prin MEBO daca erau atat de profitabile?

jormungandr, on Feb 3 2009, 14:52, said:

allyn1985, on Feb 3 2009, 15:02, said:

Daca n-ar mai fi avut o piata potentiala cum de prin anii '90 inca era plin de ARO-uri sau camioane romanesti pe la arabi, africani sau latino-americani?


Si parca anul trecut de-alde GM si Chrysler stateau pe roze de au ajuns sa cerseasca ajutor de la stat si asta tocmai in tara campioana a apararii principiilor pietei libere bla bla, nu-i asa? Nu erau acuzati chiar de ai lor cum ca produceau masini cu consum exagerat de combustibil si nu reusisera sa se adapteze conditiilor pietei si din cauza asta ar fi intrat in cacao, nu in mod exclusiv doar din cauza crizei?

Dar, na, e greu in general sa admiti ca ai fost fraier sau ca poporul din care faci parte a cam fost un popor de fraieri. Nici mie nu imi vine uneori usor sa privesc unele dintre lucrurile astea in fata pentru ca si eu tot in Romanica m-am nascut si tot aici traiesc, dar a baga capul in nisip ca strutul nu ajuta niciodata la nimic.

Edited by jormungandr, 03 February 2009 - 15:14.

jormungandr, on Feb 3 2009, 15:14, said:

Ete lula..nu mai tii minte ca obligau armata sa ia harburile de la Aro ca sa vanda si ei ceva si sa nu-i trimita pe toti in somaj?

brigazile_martirilor, on Feb 3 2009, 15:17, said:

Dar acum americanii cam ce fac cu ideile astea ca in toate lucrarile de infrastructura pe care le planifica sa foloseasca numai produse americane(fier, otel, etc.)?
Si parca armata americana ar folosi automobile japoneze cu consum mai mic  de combustibil, ce sa zic. Nu tot produse americane achizitioneaza la greu si armata SUA?

Numai ca americanii sunt baieti destepti, le baga la toti in cap texte despre concurenta super-libera si incurajarea cu orice pret a investitiilor straine, in timp ce ei au grija in timpul asta sa isi protejeze totusi propria lor industrie.
Chiar sunt de admirat la faza asta, pentru ca au stiut si stiu si acum sa isi apere interesele. Noi suntem aia prostii de am inghitit toate balivernele.

Edited by jormungandr, 03 February 2009 - 15:26.

jormungandr, on Feb 3 2009, 15:25, said:

Cred ca nu-si au sensul astfel de comparatii.

Aro cu Chrysler si GM.

Una e la Aro sa obligi armata romana sa le cumpere gioarsele, GM-ul,Chryslerul si Fordul NU TRAIAU ORICUM PE spatele armatei americane, aveau si au vanzari si la civili.

ARO daca aveau comenzi, fii tu sigur ca nu avea probleme.

brigazile_martirilor, on Feb 3 2009, 15:28, said:

Esti chiar atat de sigur?

Eu tin minte situatia din anii '90 de la intreprinderea unde lucra taica-meu, dintr-un domeniu industrial legat tot de transporturi(dar nu domeniul auto - nu vreau sa dau mai multe detalii).
Atunci venisera la ei cu propuneri de contracte tot felul de reprezentanti de la firme din tarile nordice iar la un moment dat chiar si de la General Electric(taica-meu chiar era atunci foarte entuziasmat de chestia asta pentru ca era implicat intr-o anumita masura, pe parte tehnica, in procesul de negociere). Dar toate tentativele de colaborare au picat in mod foarte probabil pentru ca firma cam trebuia in final sa fie vanduta pe nimic unor "intreprinzatori" care erau atunci mari oameni politici si sunt si in prezent mari scule intr-unul dintre actualele partide de guvernamant(de-aia nu vreau sa dau prea multe amanunte, iar taica-meu inca n-a plecat la pensie si mai are ceva timp de stat acolo). Care "intreprinzatori" aveau se pare in plan sa darame in final toata fabrica si apoi sa construiasca un mare mall pe terenul ramas.
Numai ca "intreprinzatorii" aia s-au cam cacait atat cand erau pe la putere si apoi si cand erau prin opozitie, au tot amanat ani de zile, iar acum de cand cu criza au fost nevoiti sa isi cam bage unghiile in gat si sa renunte la ideea cu mall-ul. Asa ca baietii au ramas sa se descurce acum cu firma asa cum e si, culmea ironiei, sa incerce sa o readuca macar partial la stadiul in care era imediat dupa revolutie(desi nu prea mai sunt sanse). Culmea e ca si acum ii cauta strainezii cu diferite propuneri de afaceri dar mare parte din forta de munca a plecat, multe utilaje s-au uzat si, mai ales, noii patroni tot nu reusesc sa priceapa cum merg totusi treburile in domeniul respectiv de afaceri, mai ales pe plan international(ei sunt mai mult obisnuiti sa faca combinatii, contracte cu statul nostru cel generos, sa se plimbe cu Hummer-e etc. - cred ca esti familiarizat, ca noi toti de altfel, cu genul respectiv de biznizmeni de Romanica).

Pornind de la exemplul asta pe care il cunosc destul de bine si generalizand, tare mi-e ca si la ARO este posibil sa fi existat niste situatii similare. Si despre intreprinderea unde lucra taica-meu urlau ziarele noastre cum ca e nerentabila and stuff, asta exact in timpul in care niste occidentali se tot vanturau pe acolo cu propuneri de contracte.
Dar poate tu ai lucrat chiar in industria auto sau ai ceva apropiati care au facut-o asa ca stii mai multe despre ARO and stuff decat gogosile vanturate prin ziare, eu n-am de unde sa stiu asta.

Edited by jormungandr, 03 February 2009 - 16:08.

jormungandr, on Feb 3 2009, 14:52, said:

Nationalitatea investitorilor nu conteaza decat in perioade de criza, si conteaza doar la nivel declarativ. Si pe americani, si pe britanici ii durea undeva cine erau patronii in momente de crestere economica. Si "buy american" inseamna "made in USA", nu inseamna "Company owned by USA citizens".
Sa nu mai vorbesc ca toate firmele asteapta investitorii ca pe aur, indiferent de nationalitate.

Cat despre privatizarile din Romania, acolo puteau sa participe si romani, daca aveau puterea financiara - pe care nu o aveau.
Plus ca statul roman si-a dovedit arhisuficient incapacitatea de a angaja manageri buni, astfel incat pastrarea la stat sa fie o alternativa viabila. Plus ca eu, unul, nu stiu nici o poveste de succes cu vreo firma privatizata prin MEBO.

jormungandr, on Feb 3 2009, 16:00, said:

Acceasi poveste si cu Uzina Mecanica Cugir  

Fane, on Feb 3 2009, 14:47, said:

Sunt sute de citate similare la Marx. El nu face decât să critice automatismul echilibrului în economie, cel al mâinii invizibile. Keynes zice că acest echilibru poate să o ia razna întâmplător. Marx zice că este obligatoriu ca echilibrul să nu se mai poată realiza, încât la final se dărâmă hardughia. Înclin să îl cred pe Marx, deși argumentele lui sunt cam aiurite, depășite. El zice că acest final este un nou început. Nu se vede niciun început. Mai degrabă se întrezărește întoarecerea la timpuri trecute.  

Oricum, în absența unui guvern mondial keynesismul este ineficace. Guvernele, chiar și cel al SUA se zbat inutil, cu măsuri opuse de la țară la țară. Unii cresc TVA, alții o scad etc. Distracția este maximă.


Se pierde capital, scade nivelul de trai, în căutarea unui nou punct de echilibru.

Edited by Pierde_verile, 03 February 2009 - 20:12.

Continuarea povestii cu "buy american":

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/7868799.stm

US President Barack Obama has said he wants to avoid economic stimulus measures that would signal protectionism or spark a trade war.

Mr Obama was responding to international criticism of a "Buy American" clause in the $800bn (£567bn) US economic recovery package.

The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill.

The EU said the clause would send "the worst possible signal".

A European Commission spokesman said the EU would launch a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the clause remained.

Working the language

European and Canadian ambassadors to Washington had already warned that the clause could provoke protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves.

The rescue plan has been approved by the US House of Representatives and is under discussion in the Senate this week, which could sign it off before the weekend.

But in TV interviews on Tuesday aimed at drumming up support for the stimulus package, Mr Obama said he did not want to include measures that would signal protectionism at a time of declining world trade.
"I think we need to make sure that any provisions that are in there are not going to trigger a trade war," he told TV network ABC.

In another interview with Fox News, Mr Obama said he wanted "to see what kind of language we can work on this issue".

"I think it would be a mistake though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we're just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade," he said.

...

In addition to the opposition from the EU and Canada, some senior US Republicans have cautioned that the Buy American measure could start trade wars.

The White House has said it is reviewing the Buy American part of the stimulus bill, although Vice-President Joe Biden said last week that it was legitimate to have some portion of it in the final measure.

Mr Obama has urged the US Congress not to delay his stimulus plan over modest differences.

It is unlikely that the package will be able to pass the Senate without Republican support.

Chestia asta cu "working the language" mie imi aduce cam a incercare de a schimba ambalajul fara a schimba si continutul.
Cel mai simplu ar fi pentru Obama&co. sa scoata clauza cu "buy american" din hartii si sa o inlocuiasca cu o alta care teoretic sa lase loc liber competitiei cu furnizorii neamericani insa in acelasi timp sa prevada niste conditii tehnice sau economice care sa nu poata fi satisfacute practic decat de firmele din SUA.

Asta ar fi o chestia cam ca in sectorul nostru bugetar, atunci cand se scot niste posturi la concurs. Teoretic totul e OK si e liber oricine sa isi incerce norocul la concurs, dar cand vezi printre conditiile de participare si cerinte de genul "minim 26 de ani de experienta in domeniul X" incepi sa iti pui intrebarea daca nu cumva postul ala e oarecum cu "dedicatie"pentru cineva.

jormungandr, on Feb 3 2009, 15:25, said:

Continuare si la povestea cu industria auto:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/7868141.stm

Ford, General Motors (GM) and Chrysler have all reported a sharp fall in US sales in January, as industry-wide American sales fell to a 27-year low.

Sales at Ford plunged 42% last month, compared with a year earlier, while those at GM declined 49%, and Chrysler was hit by a fall of 55%.
GM and Chrysler needed a $17.4bn (£12bn) rescue package from the US government in December.

While Ford last week reported a record $14.6bn annual loss for 2008.

...

January's decline has also hit sales of foreign cars in the US. Toyota's January American sales were down 32% from a year earlier, while those at Nissan dropped 30%.

"The truth is that the entire auto industry finds itself in the eye of this economic storm," said Toyota US executive Bob Carter.

However, both Subaru and Hyundai bucked the trend, with their January US sales rising 8% and 14%.


Chiar as fi curios sa vad daca mareata US Army ar achizitiona vreodata masini Subaru sau Hyundai in loc de masini tipice americane.

ca sa vedeti ca nimic nu-i nou sub soare: mania lalelelor, olanda 1634- 1637.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/7893574.stm

Chrysler and GM seek further aid

Troubled US carmaker Chrysler has asked for another $5bn (£3.5bn) from the US government, saying it plans to axe 3,000 jobs and cut three car models.

The moves form part of its restructuring plan submitted to the Treasury Department on Tuesday.

Meanwhile General Motors has said it would try to borrow up to $16.6bn more from the government, on top of the $13.4bn it has already received.

Its plan includes cutting 47,000 jobs and closing five more US factories.

GM says that it could be in profit within two years and fully repay its loans by 2017.

Saab mai are putin si declara faliment. Saab este detinuta de catre GM.

LE:
Opel nu mai are nici el mult pana la faliment.

Edited by aleksutzu07, 20 February 2009 - 19:35.

Ce bine, sa mai scada dracu numarul de masini, ca uite unde am ajuns cu poluarea.