More on trade barriers - TU letter to editor
I recently posted about why trade barriers are bad economic policy. My post was about an article in the Times Union about a certain trade barrier involving bearings. Now the local bearing manufacturer has written a letter to the editor of the TU. I will dissect the letter here.
Letter: ... an important decision that will help preserve good jobs in New York and the rest of the nation.
Response: The decision will also raise costs for manufacturers and consumers in the US and the rest of the world, and will likely destroy more jobs in other industries than it will save in bearings, as we saw with the steel tariffs a few years ago.
Letter: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rep. Michael McNulty and Rep. John Sweeney all stepped up to the plate when New York jobs were on the line, and they deserve the thanks of every New Yorker.
Response: Now why did they leave out Chuck Schumer? Is it because Schumer is not up for reelection? When this company (Pacamor Bearings) says every New Yorker, does this include the company, which is incorporated in Delaware? If you're so focused on NY, why isn't your company incorporated here?
Should New York businesses who will now pay more for bearings also thank these representatives? How about the consumers of those products, who will now pay more for the products they buy?
And why would members of Congress have any influence over a decision by the International Trade Commission? The ITC is supposed to make a factual determination about whether there has been dumping or other unfair trade practices, and further whether a domestic business has been injured by such practice. See the ITC anti-dumping rules. This is a fact question and members of Congress should not be offering any testimony in such a proceeding (unless they happen to be experts, which is laughable here).
So, either Clinton, McNulty and Schumer exerted inappropriate influence on a quasi-judicial body, or they did nothing and they're getting free press for doing nothing - but what else is new?
Letter: In the late 1980s, our company was thrown into bankruptcy due in part to the surge of dumped imports that led to the creation of these anti-dumping orders. The orders have provided a vital lifeline to the domestic industry -- allowing us to bounce back from bankruptcy, invest in our workers, and upgrade our equipment.
Response: In the late 80s, you mismanaged your business and deserved to go out of business. The government has rewarded your mismanagement by protecting you from your own incompetence and in the process has stuck other manufacturers, and the ultimate consumers of your products, with higher prices.
Note that the accused dumpers include China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. Those 6 countries account for well over half the economy of the rest of the world. So far the substance behind the decision is not available from the ITC. Anti-dumping rules such as these are disfavored by international trade rules such as GATT and the WTO. The US persists in them because it allows incumbents like Sweeney, McNulty and Clinton to curry favor with special interests like Pacamor Bearings. It is not to benefit Americans or New Yorkers.
Letter: ... an important decision that will help preserve good jobs in New York and the rest of the nation.
Response: The decision will also raise costs for manufacturers and consumers in the US and the rest of the world, and will likely destroy more jobs in other industries than it will save in bearings, as we saw with the steel tariffs a few years ago.
Letter: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rep. Michael McNulty and Rep. John Sweeney all stepped up to the plate when New York jobs were on the line, and they deserve the thanks of every New Yorker.
Response: Now why did they leave out Chuck Schumer? Is it because Schumer is not up for reelection? When this company (Pacamor Bearings) says every New Yorker, does this include the company, which is incorporated in Delaware? If you're so focused on NY, why isn't your company incorporated here?
Should New York businesses who will now pay more for bearings also thank these representatives? How about the consumers of those products, who will now pay more for the products they buy?
And why would members of Congress have any influence over a decision by the International Trade Commission? The ITC is supposed to make a factual determination about whether there has been dumping or other unfair trade practices, and further whether a domestic business has been injured by such practice. See the ITC anti-dumping rules. This is a fact question and members of Congress should not be offering any testimony in such a proceeding (unless they happen to be experts, which is laughable here).
So, either Clinton, McNulty and Schumer exerted inappropriate influence on a quasi-judicial body, or they did nothing and they're getting free press for doing nothing - but what else is new?
Letter: In the late 1980s, our company was thrown into bankruptcy due in part to the surge of dumped imports that led to the creation of these anti-dumping orders. The orders have provided a vital lifeline to the domestic industry -- allowing us to bounce back from bankruptcy, invest in our workers, and upgrade our equipment.
Response: In the late 80s, you mismanaged your business and deserved to go out of business. The government has rewarded your mismanagement by protecting you from your own incompetence and in the process has stuck other manufacturers, and the ultimate consumers of your products, with higher prices.
Note that the accused dumpers include China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. Those 6 countries account for well over half the economy of the rest of the world. So far the substance behind the decision is not available from the ITC. Anti-dumping rules such as these are disfavored by international trade rules such as GATT and the WTO. The US persists in them because it allows incumbents like Sweeney, McNulty and Clinton to curry favor with special interests like Pacamor Bearings. It is not to benefit Americans or New Yorkers.
posted by Albany Lawyer at 9:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home