Gerhard:
See replies below.
Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website: www.bagotronix.com
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 6/28/05 08:23:40, Ivan wrote:
IMO it's a non-tariff trade barrier, and should be challenged as one.
Why that? In a sense, every governmental regulation is a non-tariff trade
barrier -- and the US has, like every country, quite a few of those. What
about them? You're talking as if the European companies didn't have to
spend the same effort to comply with that regulation. It's not that they
solder with silver over there...
The Europeans originated the ROHS and WEEE regulations, and are farther
along than anyone else in implementation. That stands to reason, right?
Anyone who initiates something can proceed to implement it faster than
someone who didn't initiate that thing. Additionally, the EU nations are
more protective of their markets than the US. At least, it looks that way
from where I live ;-) I'm not saying the US does not protect its markets
at all, but I constantly hear of situations where the US is on the losing
end of world trade. I guarantee you that if the US had been the first to
impose ROHS and WEEE, it would have been challenged as a non-tariff trade
barrier by the EU.
Let's get real for a moment. I know that the environmentalists,
politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate PR people love ROHS and WEEE. But
does anyone who actually functions in an engineering capacity in the
electrical/electronics engineering field *really* believe that ROHS and
WEEE will improve this world? I don't. I see it as a wash, or as a
detriment. My belief on how to improve this world is to:
1) Use the *best* materials for the purpose. In this case, that is
lead-tin solder. Best longevity, least risk of tin whisker growth and
thermal/mech joint failure.
2) Use a design philosophy of building stuff that lasts, and can be
repaired where practical.
3) Don't fill up the landfills or choke the recycling facilities with stuff
that died prematurely due to bad choices of non-optimal materials.
4) Don't choke business with the extreme paperwork required to document
compliance with ROHS and WEEE. It's not just a matter of switching solder
types.
The US has only 1 vote, whereas the individual countries in the EU each
have 1 vote.
The EU is not a country. Besides, would you trade a single NAFTA (or FTAA)
vote for a single EU vote? Or would you trade votes by countries against
votes by population numbers?
I am not sure I understand your question or counterpoint. The EU is not
part of the NAFTA deal. Hey, I've got an idea! How about each of the 50
states in the United States gets 1 vote in the WTO. That would be fairer,
since each EU member "state" gets 1 vote in the WTO.
Oh, did I mention that the US does not have decent trade representation?
IMO that's not only an issue of trade representation. It's also about even
wanting to have international regulations. So far, most US governments
seemed to think that any form of international regulation (which seems to
be seen as translating to a loss of sovereignty) is not a good thing.
That's not a good position from which to tackle issues of international
regulation efficiently, of course :)
US "governments"? Plural? We've only got one. Perhaps you mean
Presidential adminstrations? If so, that sovereignty issue varies from one
administration to the next. The Clinton administration took every
opportunity to give away US sovereignty. The Bush Jr. administration is
reclaiming that sovereignty in some areas (warmaking), but still giving it
away in trade (pending passage of CAFTA, increasing federal debt held by
foreigners, etc.).
I am one of those folks who think that international regulations are a loss
of sovereignty. How can they not be? The real issue is how much
sovereignty is a nation willing to give away in order to participate in
world trade. In the case of the US, I feel that our trade reps (the US
Trade Representative) give far too many concessions to other nations. That
is not the fault of other nations, that is our (the US) fault for having
such lousy trade representatives. So, I am not criticizing Europeans as
much as I am criticizing my own government and its lack of interest in
protecting its own markets.
The last time I can remember a US administration doing something right in
trade was when President Reagan enacted quotas on Japanese auto imports.
He could have done 3 things: 1) put a huge tariff on the autos, 2) not
done anything and let the "free market" work it out, or 3) put quotas
(limits) on the number of autos imported. The first choice would have
resulted in unreasonable protection of US auto producers making inferior
products, and sky-high prices for superior Japanese autos. The second
choice would have resulted in rapid decline of the US auto industry, and
huge job loss. The third choice, quotas, was the right choice. It forced
Japanese auto makers to build assembly plants in the US and hire American
workers. This also forced the US auto makers to improve the quality of
their products to be competitive. This is the kind of trade policy the US
needs, not a policy of giving away the store.
Gerhard
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum
To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
