Category Archives: International

Regulation of the Day 12: The Price of Shrimp

The twelfth in an occasional series that shines a bit of light on the regulatory state.

Today’s Regulation of the Day comes to us from the International Trade Administration ($420 million 2009 budget, 1,433 employees).

The ITA has been upset for some time that a Thai shrimp exporter is selling shrimp cheaply; hungry consumers have had no complaints.

Using sophisticated formulae, the Department of Commerce has determined that the minimum allowable profit margin for shrimp exporters is 1.88 percent. Anything less than that constitutes “dumping,” which is selling goods on the cheap in order to harm your competitors. Anti-dumping regulations are in place to make sure that companies don’t save their customers too much money.

This kerfuffle is a perfect example of how regulators view prices and profits. If you charge more than your competitors, then you are abusing your market power. If you charge the same as everyone else, that is evidence of collusion. If, like our Thai friends, you charge low prices, then you are unfairly undercutting the competition.

Whatever you charge, and whatever your profit margin, there is a rationale for regulating you.

Read more on pages 31,911-31-912 of the 2009 Federal Register.

Actions Reveal More than Words

Hugo Chavez kicked a diplomat out of Venezuela for calling him a “dictator.”

Only a dictator would deport a man for calling him names.

Putting Faith in Our Leaders

The economist Hernando de Soto, writing about his native Peru in 1989, makes a point that holds true twenty years later and a continent away. Echoes of F.A. Hayek:

“Those who expect things to change simply because rulers with greater determination and executive skills are elected are guilty of a tremendous conceptual error.”

The Other Path, p. 237.

Clarity in the Immigration Debate

Immigration is not always the clearest of issues. Just watch the talking heads on the tv. Both sides have the maddening tendency to claim the same argument as their own — “I am for legal immigration, and against illegal immigration.”

Sounds reasonable enough. That’s probably why so many people say it in the first place. But where does that kind of thinking take us?

The quota on H1-B visas for highly skilled workers is currently 65,000 per year. Remember the pro-legal, anti-illegal argument. That requires being for 65,000 visas, and against 65,001 visas. Think about that for a minute. Isn’t that weird? 0.0015% is the difference between saying yes and no.

It gets stranger. Congress constantly changes the definition of “legal immigration.” Restrictions are tightened in one bill. Loosened in the next. Do people then change their mind every time Congress passes new immigration legislation?

This is not a rigorous line of thought. That’s why I don’t think very many people actually think that way, even if they say they do. Most people have some optimum immigration level they’d like to see. This is where the real immigration debate lies.

My preference is on the high side. For a lot of reasons, I favor letting in more immigrants. Morally and economically, in my heart and my head, that is what I believe to be right.

Others would prefer to have fewer immigrants. They have their own reasons, just as sincerely held.

Being for legal immigration and against illegal immigration may sound sane and pragmatic. Really, it is neither. It reduces a debate over the well-being of millions to semantics.

Combatants in the immigration debate should base their opinions on what they feel is just. Not on whatever happens to be legal this year.

Land Wars in Asia

Looks like the U.S. is set to double its military presence in Afghanistan.

A free and democratic Afghanistan would be a noble achievement. But a foreign army cannot affect those changes. It doesn’t matter how powerful that army is. It doesn’t matter that the army’s motives are pure. The cultural sea change we’re talking about can only come from within.

President-elect Obama seems to understand this when it comes to the Iraq war. But he doesn’t seem to realize that the same lesson applies to Afghanistan. It is time to consider taking troops out of Afghanistan, not putting more in.

More Trade Means More Peace

If goods do not cross borders, then soldiers will.

It’s an old saying. Maybe even a cliche. But there is some truth to it. What wonderful news, then, that India and Pakistan have re-opened a trade route through the Kashmir region.

Soldiers have been crossing that border for 60 years. Replacing those soldiers with spices, apples, and other, ahem, non-fatal goods will have two positive effects. First, those goods will become cheaper and more abundant in India and Pakistan.

Second, the new trade route will help to strengthen the blossoming but still fragile peace; killing the customer is bad for business. Indians and Pakistani in and around Kashmir are developing a financial incentive to get along.

Expanding international trade is not just good economics. It is good foreign policy. Congress and our next president, whoever he is, would do well to heed that lesson.

Korea’s Beef Standoff Continues

There were more street protests in Seoul on Sunday over U.S. beef. The public is scared out of their minds that they’ll get mad cow disease. The domestic beef industry doesn’t like having to face competition. President Lee Myung-bak’s approval rating is lower than President Bush’s. The pending U.S.-Korea free trade agreement is under fire.

Will it pass? The Wall Street Journal Asia, in a standout editorial today, thinks so. The beef outcry is a temporary phenomenon, they believe.

“It’s worth noting that the opposition party hasn’t gained any ground at Mr. Lee’s expense, a sign that the public protests may mask broader support for the free-trade agreement.”

Let’s hope they’re right.

U.S.-Korean Trade Agreement Stalls

It looks like the impasse on the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement will get worse before it gets better. A mad cow disease scare is reaching epidemic proportions among the Korean public. The beef scare is stalling passage of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.

President Lee Myung-Bak has been under heavy fire ever since he decided to lift the 2003 ban on importing U.S. beef. The public outcry climaxed in a 100,000-strong protest over the weekend in Seoul.

Koreans are terrified that eating U.S. beef will give them mad cow disease. They shouldn’t be. I noted in an earlier post that approximately one in 35 million cows slaughtered in the U.S. have mad cow disease. Those odds are negligible; our food supply is safe.

If people still want to be scared, that is their right. No one should force them to buy U.S. beef. But why do they want to take that option away from people who don’t frighten so easily? Especially when $20 billion of increased trade is at stake?

The Cuban Embargo

Barack Obama says he would keep in place the 47-year old Cuban trade embargo if elected President. CNN says Obama views the trade restrictions as “leverage to push for democratic change on the island.”

Yes, those sanctions have been awfully effective. Just look at how much more democratic Cuba has become since we began the embargo.

(Pardon the sarcasm.)

The Crime of Disagreeing


This is what happens to people who disagree with Robert Mugabe. The man in the picture is Morgan Tsvangirai. He is the leader of Zimbabwe’s opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change. In March of last year he was arrested and beaten for the crime of favoring different policies than Mugabe.

In recent elections Tsvangirai’s MDC took over the parliament. He is also probably the rightful President; he almost certainly beat Mugabe in the election. Zimbabwe is not known for fair elections, though. Tsvangirai still has to go through a run-off election against Mugabe in June.

The Washington Post reports that Tsvangirai just returned home after spending seven weeks abroad for safety reasons. Inflation is now estimated at over one million percent. The economy is in shambles. People are starving. Let us hope that Tsvangirai stays safe, even if he has different ideas than Robert Mugabe.