Category Archives: Trade

Regulation of the Day 89: Purple Dye

Ancient Roman consuls – equivalent to our presidents – wore togas edged in purple to mark their high status. As Republic became Empire, new emperors were said to “ascend to the purple.”

Purple clothing was a status symbol for most of human history. It was the ancient equivalent of the Mercedes-Benz. Originally discovered in the glands of shellfish (reputedly by Heracles’s dog!), it took 12,000 of the creatures to get just 1.5 grams of dye. Purple garments could be as rare and costly as gold in some places.

Modern innovations such as inexpensive synthetic dyes, the Minnesota Vikings, and purple M&Ms have taken away the color’s exotic reputation. But no worry. Federal regulators are doing what they can to bring it back.

Alpinil Industries, a dye manufacturer in India, sells its carbazole violet pigment 23 cheaply. Too cheaply, it seems. Even commoners can afford to buy products colored with their purple hues!

Irate American competitors convinced the government in 2004 to put an anti-dumping duty on Alpinil’s purple dye. That raised the price to match pricey American-made dyes. Purple would once again be reserved for the rich.

Now that the tax has been in place for five years, the Department of Commerce is wrapping up an investigation to see if it has been working as intended. A repeal would be best for consumers. Don’t expect to see it happen, though.

The benefits are concentrated to a few dye manufacturers, who have a strong incentive to lobby to keep the status quo. Meanwhile, the costs are diffused onto millions of consumers, none of whom have much incentive to spend thousands of dollars in an effort to save themselves a few pennies.

Don’t Worry about Trade Deficits

Here’s a letter I sent recently to the New York Daily News:

December 3, 2009

Editor, New York Daily News
450 W. 33rd Street
New York, NY 10001

Washington, D.C.: In his December 3 column, “On jobs front, President Obama needs to show a little audacity,” Errol Louis worries about America’s trade deficit. He shouldn’t.

I run an ongoing trade deficit with my local grocery store. I import food from them every week. They have never purchased a thing from me in return. Even so, we both benefit. I’d rather have their food than my money, and they’d rather have my money than the food on their shelves. This is true even if an international border separates us.

If Mr. Louis is as worried about trade deficits as he says he is, he would never again set foot in a grocery store, start growing his own food, and engage only in barter transactions. If he doesn’t, he is either misinformed, or else he doesn’t really believe what he writes.

Ryan Young
Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.

Regulation of the Day 68: Ironing Tables

ironing table

Regulation begets rent-seeking. When government assumes the power to regulate imports, domestic firms will lobby to use that fact to their advantage.

Case in point: Home Products International (HPI), an American company, makes ironing tables. So does Hardware, a Chinese company. I personally have no idea which firm makes the better ironing table. That’s for consumers to decide.

Or at least it should be for consumers to decide. But it doesn’t always work that way in practice. HPI seems to have already made that decision for us.

At HPI’s request, the International Trade Administration will continue to add anti-dumping duties to the price of the Chinese-made ironing tables. That way HPI doesn’t have to worry as much about competing. Sorry, consumers.

Is this fair? Of course not. But all too often, it is how regulation works.

What Does Protectionism Protect?

Classic reductio ad absurdum.

Modern technology could easily grow oranges and grapes in hothouses in the arctic and subarctic countries. Everybody would call such a venture lunacy. But it is essentially the same to preserve the growing of cereals in rocky mountain valleys by tariffs and other devices of protectionism while elsewhere there is plenty of fallow fertile land. The difference is merely one of degree.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, p. 395.

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

obama-smile_1107663i

It is ironic that the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize wants to send more troops to Afghanistan. Even so, President Obama is in a prime position to work wonders for the cause of peace. He can institute free trade in America.

Trade is the ultimate act of peace. If someone has something you covet, you are faced with a choice. You could take it from him by force. Or you could trade for it. The first option is the root of all war. The second is the root of all peace.

Trading with people instead of stealing from them is a sign of respect. It says you honor their rights as an individual. It says you reject the use of force. It says you choose persuasion over coercion.

If he wants to earn the prize he has been given, President Obama should scrap those tire tariffs against China. Publicly retract his blustery campaign statements about renegotiating NAFTA. Repeal every tariff, every antidumping duty, and every last restraint on trade in the books.

Nothing promotes peace and civility more than commerce. After all, killing the customer is very bad for business.

Precisely Backwards

People buy less of something when it becomes more expensive. That’s what economists call the law of demand. It is one of the key drivers of every facet of human behavior. And it’s a simple concept. Easy to understand. Easy to apply.

Or maybe it only seems that way. 366 members of Congress just voted to attract tourists to the U.S. by taxing them $10 when they enter the country.

That noise you hear may well be Adam Smith rolling over in his grave.

Few things are more taxing than our elected officials’ economic illiteracy. How sad that visiting a wonderful country like America may soon be one of them.

Regulation of the Day 50: Tires from China

Consumers have been buying a lot of tires made in China lately. Naturally, U.S.-based tire manufacturers are upset at their competitors’ success. Fortunately, there are two ways for the aggrieved American firms to ease their troubled minds:

1: Make better tires for less money. Give consumers a reason to buy American tires rather than Chinese. Compete, in other words.

2: Don’t compete. Too much hard work. Instead, persuade some politicians to place a 35 percent protective tariff on competitors’ tires. Price them out of the market. Then keep making the same old tires that people don’t want. If the tariff is large enough, you may even be able to raise your prices, even without raising quality.

This is a choice between raising the bar and lowering it. Unfortunately, U.S. tire firms and allied politicians have chosen to lower it. China, by putting up its own barriers to retaliate, is lowering the bar even further.

The really audacious part is that tire tariff supporters think they are really helping the economy. Raising that bar. Saving American jobs!

There is something very unsettling about the notion that an American job is intrinsically more valuable than a Chinese job. We are all human beings, are we not?

This is an ugly, ugly mindset. And it is one that politicians and tire companies have explicitly adopted. The burden is on them to explain why they think people who live in one country are more deserving of economic opportunity than people who live in another.

Regulation of the Day 33: Pressure-Sensitive Plastic Tape

The ITA’s antidumping duty on pressure-sensitive plastic tape from Italy was set to expire soon. Unfortunately, ending the levy would “likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping,” so it’s here to stay.

Domestic tape producers must be pleased. Consumers, not so much.

Regulation of the Day 29: Protecting Us from Cheap Foreign Goods

Sometimes (but not always), when a foreign producer sells goods to U.S. consumers cheaply, the U.S. government takes action to put a stop to it. Trade economists call this antidumping policy. This usually means putting tariffs on cheap goods to raise their prices. These tariffs protect consumers because competitive pricing is anti-competitive.

And no, I don’t get that logic either.

Regardless, the International Trade Agency announced this week that it is updating its antidumping rules for the following foreign products:

Certain Pasta from Italy, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan, Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People’s Republic of China, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico, and finally, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India.

More to come, I’m sure.

In Which Greed Is Good

The great economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote that “[F]ree trade is the cement that holds together the idea of peace.”*

His logic is sound. To put it bluntly, killing the customer is bad for business. And money talks. Commerce gives people who may hate each other a powerful incentive to get along; greed can be a force for good.

*Thomas K. McCraw, Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), p. 110.