<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: imports</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'imports'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22imports%22&t=%22imports%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:38:59 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>More on the Ex-Im Bank</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5181768&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F0FaWo2NWsUM%2F</link>
            <description>By Sallie JamesLast week I blogged about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposal to devote $20 billion of the Export-Import Bank’s funds to promoting manufacturing exports, and why that was a bad idea.
But I realize that my recent call to “X Out the Ex-Im Bank” will be facing some very entrenched interests in Washington, and some well-funded lobby groups. The Bank has historically attracted bipartisan support, and a renewal of its charter sailed through the House Committee on Financial Services earlier this year. The Washington establishment loves this program.
My friend and long-time Ex-Im Bank supporter Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics published a critique a few weeks ago of my analysis, and calls for a doubling of Ex-Im’s authorization cap (f...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5181768</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:03:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5181768</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Trade Agreements Promote U.S. Manufacturing Exports</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4911457&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FvV-HK1K8LpU%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel GriswoldDo trade agreements promote trade? The answer appears to be yes. In a new Cato Free Trade Bulletin released today, I examine the record of trade agreements the United States has signed with 14 other nations during the past decade.
The impact of those agreements on U.S. trade is a timely subject because Congress may soon consider pending free-trade agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Opponents of such deals often argue that they open the U.S. economy to unfair competition from low-wage countries, displacing U.S. manufacturing. Advocates argue the agreements do open the U.S. market further to imports, but they open markets abroad even wider for U.S. exports.
Based on actual post-agreement trade flows, I found that both total imports and exports with th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4911457</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:22:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4911457</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Energy Error Continued</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4670091&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FTpfGnYThmvk%2F</link>
            <description>By Richard L. GordonWhen Barack Obama emerged as a serious contender for the presidency, he offered a core menu of curing everything by increased federal intervention in health care, education, and energy. Whenever new problems arose that lessened the urgency of earlier concerns, Obama has crafted assertions that his original prescriptions will also resolve the new difficulties. In energy, this has involved extending his program to new, even more dubious projects. He also has a habit of incessantly repeating the same tired arguments in the vain hope that his skill at persuasion will win the day.
His March 30, 2011 energy speech and accompanying Blueprint are typical. About the only differences between these and his June 15, 2010 speech on energy were more bad ideas. He added to the panic...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4670091</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:24:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4670091</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What’s Wrong with Imported Oil?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4658361&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxKTbpjkN3VQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel GriswoldIn a speech today at Georgetown University, President Obama called for a goal of cutting America’s oil imports by one-third within a decade. Like all efforts to wean Americans from big, bad imports, such a policy will mean we will all pay more than we need to for the energy that helps to power our economy.
I’ll leave it to my able Cato colleagues to dissect the president’s proposal in terms of energy policy, but it terms of trade policy, this is about as bad as it gets.
We Americans benefit tremendously from our relatively free trade in petroleum products. Like all forms of trade, the importation of oil produced abroad allows us to acquire it at a price far lower than we would pay if we had to rely more heavily on domestic oil supplies.
The money we save buying oil ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4658361</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:36:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4658361</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Trading with China is Good for Us</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4653308&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fhd7HTNdwtwA%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel GriswoldBack in February, more than 100 House members introduced a bill that would make it easier to slap duties on imports from China. I explain why picking a trade fight with China would be a bad idea all around in an article just published in the print edition of National Review magazine.
Titled “Deal with the Dragon: Trade with the Chinese is good for us, them, and the world,” the article explains why our burgeoning trade with the Middle Kingdom is benefiting Americans as consumers, especially low- and middle-income families that spend a higher share on the everyday consumer items we import from China.
We also benefit as producers—China is now the no. 3 market for U.S. exports and by far the fastest growing major market. Chinese investment in Treasury bills keeps intere...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4653308</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:36:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4653308</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Embracing More of Trade’s Selling Points</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4318312&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fky_aYSoPKMc%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel IkensonAs a primer for the new Congress, my friend John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce posted the &amp;#8220;top ten reasons why pro-growth trade and investment policies and agreements are good for America.&amp;#8221; As usual, I agree with John’s points. And I concur that the time is particularly ripe for educating policymakers about the virtues of trade.
But with all due respect to John, his list is not so much about trade and investment. It’s really about exports (one of 10 points is about imports). Informing new members and reminding old of the benefits of exports to U.S. businesses and workers is clearly a worthwhile objective of the Chamber, the business community, and really anybody interested in economic growth. But in some respect there’s a preaching-to-the-choir e...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4318312</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:30:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4318312</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>If Only the USTR Were This Enthusiastic about Liberalizing Trade</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4258836&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FhdOrVu4LUdo%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel IkensonThere was really never any doubt that the United States would prevail in the dispute brought by China to the World Trade Organization over President Obama’s decision last year to levy duties on tire imports from China. The WTO verdict, revealed yesterday, simply affirms that the administration acted in accordance with U.S. WTO commitments—and leaves to others, such as myself, to conclude that the duties were a highly political act perpetrated with utter contempt for the significant economic and diplomatic costs of those actions.
Thus, &amp;#8220;prevailing&amp;#8221; in the WTO case should not be considered a source of universal joy for all Americans or even most Americans, as one might infer from the reaction of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who jubilantly proclaimed, ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4258836</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:13:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4258836</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Media Miss Real News in Latest Trade Report</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4249043&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FgwG4wkc_VpU%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel GriswoldThis morning’s report from the U.S. Department of Commerce that the pesky trade deficit shrank unexpectedly in October is being hailed in the media as “good news” for the economy, while the real news behind the numbers remains buried.
According to the latest monthly trade report, exports of U.S. goods rose in October compared to September, while imports declined slightly. Rising exports are good news in anybody&amp;#8217;s book, but according to the conventional Keynesian and mercantilist logic, falling imports must also be good for the economy because that means consumers are spending more on domestically produced goods, right? Wrong.
In the real world, that assumption is almost always false, as I did my best to document a few weeks back in an op-ed titled, “Are risi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4249043</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:21:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4249043</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>China Bill All about Saving Lawmakers’ Jobs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4013141&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FYzCYLVhN_Vg%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel GriswoldThe House is expected to vote today on a bill that would allow U.S. companies to petition the Commerce Department for protective tariffs against imports from countries with “misaligned currencies.” Everybody knows the bill is aimed squarely at China.
Advocates of the legislation say it is about jobs, and they are partly right. The bill is about saving the jobs of incumbent lawmakers who are desperate to appear tough on China trade, which they blame for the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
As my colleague Dan Ikenson and I have argued at length, in blog posts, op-eds, and longer studies,

A stronger Chinese currency will not put a major dent in our large bilateral trade deficit with China, certainly not any time in the near future.
The bilateral deficit with China and ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4013141</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:29:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4013141</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Rumors of Manufacturing’s Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3924890&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FfP_wIRcIzjY%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel Ikenson“US manufacturing grows for 13th straight month” is the headline of an AP newswire story posted around noon today.  This statistic doesn’t surprise me, since I’ve been following developments in U.S. manufacturing for many years now, and have published analyses of public data that refute the myth of deindustrialization and manufacturing decline. 
With the exception of the recession of 08-09, when all U.S. economic sectors took a hit, U.S. manufacturing has been breaking its own record, year after year, with respect to output, value-added, profits, returns on investment, exports, and imports. U.S. factories are the world’s most prolific, accounting for 21.4% of global manufacturing value added in 2008 (China accounted for 13.4%).
But I bring the AP headline to y...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3924890</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:40:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3924890</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Prominent Economists Debate Trade Deficits</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3880832&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAm5h5LMNov0%2F</link>
            <description>Following Dan&amp;#8217;s and David&amp;#8217;s recent posts on the trade deficit and its (ir)relevance, allow me to draw readers&amp;#8217; attention to the Economist&amp;#8217;s &amp;#8220;By Invitation&amp;#8221; blog, where invited prominent economists debate topical economic issues.
One of their current questions is: Should governments take any steps to boost exports? That&amp;#8217;s an important topic, and an especially timely one given the Obama administration&amp;#8217;s &amp;#8216;National Export Initiative,&amp;#8217; a five-year plan to double U.S. exports. All of us here at Cato&amp;#8217;s trade center have previously expressed skepticism about the feasiblity and/or wisdom of that plan, and Dan Ikenson blogged earlier today about the administration&amp;#8217;s apparent incoherence in pursuit of that goal. 
The Economis...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3880832</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:21:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3880832</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Nonsense about the Trade Deficit</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3861995&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQ3W4SYstG6M%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel GriswoldIt has become conventional wisdom that a rising trade deficit is bad news for the economy. This week’s announcement of an expanding deficit in June prompted such headlines today as this one in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal: “Wider Trade Gap Signals Weak Growth.” As my colleague David Boaz blogged earlier today, the trade deficit is even blamed for daily swings in the stock market.
I’ve been studying and writing about the trade deficit for years, and devoted a whole chapter of by 2009 Cato book Mad about Trade to the subject, and I keep coming back to a basic question: If the trade deficit signals weak growth, why does the U.S. economy seem to perform so much better during periods when the trade deficit is growing, and so much worse when the trade defic...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3861995</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:32:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3861995</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Imports Viewed Skeptically at the Washington Post</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3805809&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNoxILol0M48%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel IkensonWhat explains the chronically misleading depictions and interpretations of international trade in the Washington Post?  Is it economic illiteracy? Intellectual indifference? Institutional bias? What?
The opening paragraph in Neil Irwin’s story (online, July 30, 2010, 9:13 am) reads:
The pace of economic growth slowed this spring, according to new government data, as Americans remained reluctant to consume and imports soared.
And a few paragraphs later:
The biggest drain on growth was imports, which rose 28.8 percent, compared with only a 10.3 percent gain in exports.
On July 14, one day after the Commerce Department’s monthly trade figures were released, revealing a slight increase in the trade deficit, the opening paragraph in the Washington Post story under the hea...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3805809</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:55:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3805809</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>U.S. Antidumping Regime Restrains U.S. Export Growth</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3585593&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlcBbCg8vZf8%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel IkensonIn honor of World Trade Week—and for its decreed purpose of educating Americans about trade—this post is about U.S. trade policy working at cross-purposes with other policies or goals of the administration. So numerous are these examples of trade policy dissonance, that a committed wonk could devote an entire website to the task of documenting them.
If the administration were serious about making trade policy work—rather than just paying it lip service—it would compile its own exhaustive list of laws, regulations, policies, and practices that actually undermine its stated objectives of facilitating economic growth, investment, and job creation through expanded trade opportunities. Then, it would make the changes necessary to ensure that our policies are paddling in...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3585593</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 21:11:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3585593</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharmalot… Pharmalittle… Good Morning</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3505137&amp;cid=t_155551_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FubrhZ2KsmVM%2F</link>
            <description>Welcome to the working week. We hope your weekend was pleasant, despite a spot of rain that continues to linger over the Pharmalot corporate campus and our general vicinity. Nonetheless, our spirits are sunny as we ready ourselves for another day. As usual, we are armed with a cup of stimulation and a grab bag of interesting items. Dig in and have a good one&amp;#8230;
Novartis Buys Alnylam Shares (Associated Press)
Dendreon Stock Will Rise On FDA Approval (TheStreet)
European Medicines Agency Is Overwhelmed With Work (PharmaTimes)
Merck &amp;#038; Nycomed To Market COPD Drug (MarketWatch)
North Dakokta AG Questions Import Bill (KXNET.com)
Merck Says Health Care Reform To Cost $320M (Associated Press) (Source: Pharmalot)</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3505137</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:50:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3505137</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Oil Import Make Believe</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3499057&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Ffbhl-ltldn4%2F</link>
            <description>By Jerry TaylorA conversation with documentarian Robert Stone regarding Earth Day is featured today in The New York Times&amp;#8217;s “Dot Earth” online column.  In the course of his conversation with the Times&amp;#8217;s Andrew Revkin, Mr. Stone &amp;#8212; who is quite alarmed about our reliance on foreign oil &amp;#8212; asks:  &amp;#8220;How many Americans know that we send about $800 billion to the Middle East every year for oil?&amp;#8221;
Hopefully, not many. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. spent $95.4 billion on crude oil imports from OPEC sources in 2009.  But not all OPEC members are from the Middle East.  That $95.4 billion includes dollars spent on oil originating from Algeria ($6.3 billion), Angola ($9 billion), Ecuador ($3.4 billion), Nigeria ($17.7 billion), an...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3499057</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:11:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3499057</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Calling Out Trade’s Myth Makers</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403868&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIF4mb5ideWY%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel IkensonOrganized labor&amp;#8217;s trade &amp;#8220;think tank&amp;#8221; in Washington, the Economic Policy Institute, claims that currency manipulation is a major cause of the U.S. trade deficit with China, which (along with other unfair trade practices) accounted for 2.4 million American job losses between 2001 and 2008. EPI has been making similar claims for years, getting lots of media attention for its hyperbole, and providing smoke bombs for charlatan politicians to hurl into the discussion to obscure the public&amp;#8217;s understanding of trade.   For starters, as conveyed in this new paper, I am skeptical about the relationship between currency undervaluation and the trade account.
EPI&amp;#8217;s methodology (to use the term loosely) is not to be taken seriously, though, because it deri...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403868</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403868</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Time to Lose the Trade Enforcement Fig Leaf</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3235828&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fcaw7UitGmus%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel IkensonDuring his SOTU address last week, the president declared it a national goal to double our exports over the next five years.  As my colleague Dan Griswold argues (a point that is echoed by others in this NYT article), such growth is probably unrealistic. But with incomes rising in China, India and throughout the developing world, and with huge amounts of savings accumulated in Asia, strong U.S. export growth in the years ahead should be a given—unless we screw it up with a provocative enforcement regime.
The president said:
If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules.
Ah, the enforce...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3235828</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:46:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3235828</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Mainstream Media’s Trade Gap</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3149038&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fi4laDEwh48A%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel IkensonIn a post at the Enterprise Blog two days ago, economist Mark Perry deftly parodies a typical mainstream media account of trade protectionism by editing the story in redline to contrast its original presentation with its true significance. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here’s the first paragraph:
WASHINGTON POST (Reuters) &amp;#8211; A U.S. trade panel gave final approval on Wednesday to duties taxes ranging from 10 to 16 percent on cost-conscious firms in the U.S. who purchase low-priced Chinese-made steel pipe rather than high-price domestic pipe, in the biggest U.S. trade case to date against China American companies (and their shareholders, employees, and customers) who shop globally for their inputs and find the best value in China.
Perry’s point—and I s...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3149038</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:40:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3149038</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma Deal With White House Delays Health Reform</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3079577&amp;cid=t_155551_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F9wiFK8p7CQs%2F</link>
            <description>A deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry is holding up a bipartisan amendment to allow the importation of cheaper meds from abroad, according to reports. The Senate has been debating the amendment, sponsored by North Dakota&amp;#8217;s Byron Dorgan this week, but has not voted, which is causing a delay in floor action on healthcare reform.
His amendment, which would permit bulk exports of meds from countries such as Canada, enjoys broad and bipartisan support and likely has the backing of more than 60 senators, which would guarantee its adoption on the healthcare reform bill, The Hill writes.
&amp;#8220;People are walking on eggshells,&amp;#8221; Dorgan, a Democrat, tells The New York Times. &amp;#8220;If we pass legislation allowing people freedom to import drugs, the pharmaceutical...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3079577</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:48:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3079577</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ask Consumers if They Like a Weak Dollar</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2943765&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FJ08j1EAl2cE%2F</link>
            <description>According to a Washington Post story today, “the weak dollar is one problem the United States loves to have.” The story reports how the fall of the dollar against the euro and other currencies in the past year has boosted U.S. exports and discouraged imports, cutting the trade deficit and allegedly boosting the U.S. economy. A weaker dollar has spurred complaints in Europe and elsewhere, but here at home the Post story leaves the impression the approval is practically unanimous.
Nowhere in the 1,058-word story is the impact on consumers ever mentioned. But it is American consumers who pay the biggest price when the dollars we earn buy less on global markets. We are paying more for oil, which not coincidentally has zoomed toward $80 as the dollar flounders. A weaker dollar means higher ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2943765</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:56:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2943765</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Curbing Free Trade to Save It</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2838903&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNy2-231gpm8%2F</link>
            <description>In the latest example of “We had to burn the village to save it” logic, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argues in a letter in the Washington Post this morning that the way to “support more trade” in the future is to raise barriers to trade today.
Brown criticizes Post columnist George Will for criticizing President Obama for imposing new tariffs on imported tires from China. Like President Obama himself, Brown claims that by invoking the Section 421 safeguard, the president was merely “enforcing” the trade laws that China agreed to but has failed to follow. He scolds advocates of trade for talking about the “rule of law” but failing to enforce it when it comes to trade agreements. Brown concludes, “If America is ever to support more trade, its people need to know that the rules...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2838903</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:05:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2838903</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama to Impose Tariff on Chinese Tires</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2788501&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F7xZSeeBOV4c%2F</link>
            <description>From the quiet shadows of the White House, at around 10 pm on Friday night, came word that President Obama will impose prohibitive duties of 35% on imports of Chinese tires.
Well, we at Cato and elsewhere have warned repeatedly of the dangerous consequences of this outcome (June 18, July 24, August 13, September 9, September 11). Former Cato colleague and coauthor Scott Lincicome has an excellent analysis on the ramifications right here.
The good news is that we now have clarity about where the president stands on trade. The bad news is that his stance reflects his isolationist primary election campaign rhetoric and not the post-election messages of avoiding protectionism and repairing the damage done to America&amp;#8217;s international credibility by unilateralist Bush administration policie...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2788501</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:35:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2788501</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Cato Paper Warns of the Consequences of Restrictions on Chinese Tires</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2788503&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxSQFWdJkSZo%2F</link>
            <description>Despite the controversy that seems to color all portrayals of U.S. trade with China, the bilateral relationship has held up remarkably well, to the benefit of both countries. But, as I explain in this hot-off-the-presses Free Trade Bulletin, things could go south quickly if President Obama grants the wish of the United Steelworkers union to impose import restrictions on Chinese-produced passenger tires.
Under a special U.S. statute that applies only to China, the president can authorize import restrictions in cases where a domestic industry is found to be suffering from &amp;#8220;market disruption&amp;#8221; on account of increased imports from China. The U.S. International Trade Commission already rendered that conclusion in the tires case and recommended that the president impose duties of 55 p...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2788503</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:50:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2788503</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Flat Tire for Low-Income Drivers?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2778388&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FjerIjbKhW7M%2F</link>
            <description>Will the President raise taxes on new tires?
President Obama will need to decide any day now whether to impose tariffs on lower-end automobile tires imported from China. As my colleague Dan Ikenson has ably argued, the decision will tell us much about whether the president believes trade policy should serve the general interest of all Americans, or whether it is simply a political tool to satisfy key constituencies.
Neglected in the news coverage of the pending decision is the impact it could have on consumers. The imported tires targeted by this Section 421 case are of the cheaper variety, the kind that low-income Americans would buy to keep their cars on the road during a recession. If the president decides to impose tariffs, his union supporters will cheer, but “working families’ wi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2778388</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:15:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2778388</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Harsh Climate for Trade</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2778392&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FdYrS3bQjgmM%2F</link>
            <description>Although it has very much taken a back-seat to health care, and a press report [$] today say it could be bumped down yet another notch on the administration&amp;#8217;s hierarchy of goals, climate change is shaping up to be a major battle if the others don&amp;#8217;t prove to be prohibitively exhausting. So today I am weighing in on the debate by releasing my new paper on the dangers of using trade measures as a tool of climate policy.
The Democrats were keen to pass a climate change bill in advance of the December meeting in Copenhagen designed to agree on a successor regime to the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012.  However, opposition from a number of quarters and the fear of health-care-town-halls-mark-II has cooled their heels. Senate leaders have pushed back the deadline for passing...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2778392</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:36:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2778392</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama Administration Sides With Special Interests and Status Quo on Sugar Imports</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2715920&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FUrtpVTrB35Q%2F</link>
            <description>Pardon me while I pile on the post earlier today by my colleague Sallie James about the Obama administration refusing to allow more sugar to be imported to the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture this week declined to relax the quotas the federal government imposes on imported sugar despite soaring domestic prices and understandable complaints from U.S. confectioners and other sugar-consuming businesses about potential shortages.
For all his talk about change, President Barack Obama has shown no inclination to pursue meaningful reform of U.S. agricultural programs. He supported the subsidy-laden and protectionist farm bill that finally passed Congress in 2008. On the eve of the U.S. presidential election in October 2008, he wrote a letter to the U.S. sugar industry reminding ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2715920</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:49:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2715920</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Sweet, and Yet Very, Very Sour</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2715922&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FEYEjyI3nroc%2F</link>
            <description>My colleagues have blogged before about the recent sugar &amp;#8220;market&amp;#8221; woes. There was some hope that the USDA, which manages sugar imports very carefully to maintain U.S. prices up to three times higher than world prices, would relax the sugar quotas this year and give sugar users some well-deserved and long overdue relief.
Alas, it was not to be. According to Congress Daily, the USDA announced today [$] that there would be no increase in the import quota for the time being, and that their models saw no cause for alarm because of predicted increases in domestic production and Mexican imports (allowed special import status through NAFTA). And who cares about sugar users&amp;#8217; concerns when you have models?
The American Sugar Alliance says (sigh) that the announcement &amp;#8220;makes ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2715922</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:00:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2715922</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Charles Rangel Keeps a Cool Head</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2517207&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FODHHpGih82A%2F</link>
            <description>Pat Michaels and I have written an op-ed on the climate change bill due for a vote tomorrow in Congress, and our opinions on its provisions are summarized pretty well there. In short, the bill appears to offer very little in the way of reduced global warming in return for harm to the domestic economy and to international relations.
Yesterday&amp;#8217;s New York Times energy and environment section (online) contains an article picking up on the increasingly harmful trade-related parts of the bill. Apparently the House Ways and Means Committee is trying to assert language that would make imposing carbon tariffs more likely than did the original Energy and Commerce Committee bill, bad enough that it was.
So what say you, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Commit...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2517207</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:05:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2517207</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharmalot… Pharmalittle… Welcome Back</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2006401&amp;cid=t_155551_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F471219058%2F</link>
            <description>And so the long holiday weekend here in the states has ended. We hope you had a nice time, whatever you did. Certainly, a respite was in order. Now, though, the time has come to return to the routine, which means meetings, projects and deadlines are looming. To help you along, we have gathered a few interesting items. So grab that cup of stimulation and dig in&amp;#8230;
Lower-Cost Drugs Forecast Under Obama Administration (Chicago Tribune)
Will Teva Conduct At-Risk Launch Of Lilly&amp;#8217;s Evista? (Bloomberg News)
FDA Frets Over Pig Virus In Solvay Enzyme (Reuters)
Some US Docs May Forego Vaccines Over Cost (Associated Press) (Source: Pharmalot)</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2006401</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:40:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2006401</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Boston Ends Program For Cheap Canadian Drugs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1841251&amp;cid=t_155551_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F406448277%2F</link>
            <description>Four years after Boston&amp;#8217;s mayor, Tom Menino, bucked federal regulators and made Beantown the biggest city to offer low-cost Canadian prescription drugs to employees and retirees, the program has fizzled, never having attracted more than a few dozen participants, The Boston Globe reports.
In July, the Canadian supplier, Total Care Pharmacy of Winnipeg, notified city officials it was terminating its deal because there were few participants. When the last Canadian drugs are shipped to Boston retirees in December, it will mark the quiet end to an initiative that generated headlines, the paper writes. City Hall blamed its demise on a lack of interest from city retirees eligible to participate.
Most city and state programs have died down, after Springfield, Massachusetts began the trend in...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1841251</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:33:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1841251</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Glaxo Violated EU Antitrust Law In Greece</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1340918&amp;cid=t_155551_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F261965340%2F</link>
            <description>Glaxo violated European Union antitrust laws when it refused to fill orders placed by Greek wholesalers for several meds, according to an adviser to the EU&amp;#8217;s highest court. Greek drugmakers had sued Glaxo as part of an eight-year long dispute over its refusal to supply them with three drugs in Greece and limit the stock they could export to higher-priced countries, Bloomberg News reports. 
Drugmakers have been fighting parallel importation in which wholesalers buy meds at state-regulated prices in countries such as Greece then sell them in more expensive markets, such as the UK, and pocket the difference. The case is expected to clarify the rights of drugmakers, which claim the practice costs them more than $6 billion in lost sales each year, to control supply to parallel traders, ac...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1340918</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:40:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1340918</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Plavix and Thailand: why you should care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=822306&amp;cid=t_155551_87_f&amp;fid=34866&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecardioblog.com%2F2007%2F08%2F25%2Fplavix-and-thailand-why-you-should-care%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Drugs, Daily newsThe Thai government says the heart drug Plavix is way overpriced. And it's going to do something about it: it will begin importing generic versions of Plavix from India. The first batch of two million pills will arrive soon, says the chairman of Thailand's Government Pharmaceutical Organisation. The imported version of Plavix, a blood-thinner, will cost only the equivalent of three US cents per pill. Compare this with the current cost for Thai heart patients: two US dollars per pill!In order to do all this, the Thai government approved a temporary suspension of patent protections for expensive medications. Needless to say, this has seriously ticked off the big pharmaceutical companies! (Plavix, by the way, is sold by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol Myers-Squibb.) H...</description>
            <author>The Cardio Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=822306</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">822306</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Would Imported Drugs Create Savings?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=728742&amp;cid=t_155551_150_f&amp;fid=35781&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qdinformation.com%2Fqdisblog%2F2007%2F03%2F09%2Fwould-imported-drug-create-savings%2F</link>
            <description>The Washington Post had an article earlier this week where experts questioned whether or not allowing imported drugs would result in significant saving for US customers.
Expert Questions Import Drug Savings - washingtonpost.com
Stephen Schondelmeyer, a University of Minnesota pharmaceutical economist testified that imports would cut U.S. prices by only 12 percent to 20 percent (emphasis mine). I&amp;#8217;m not sure what this economist think is significant but for many people on fixed incomes who are paying hundreds or dollars (or more) each month for prescription drugs this is indeed significant! I think it may again be a case of someone in an ivory tower not being in touch with some of the concerns of normal everyday people.
As regular readers know though, this doesn&amp;#8217;t mean I favor dru...</description>
            <author>QDIS Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=728742</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:13:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">728742</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

