QandO

July 07, 2004

Consumers penalized by government shrimp tariff
Posted by McQ

Marylin Geewax writes for the business section of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and is a bit of a treasure in my estimation. She consistently writes a clear and complete article about whatever subject she tackles, thereby giving me the information I need to make an informed decision on the subject. I put this in here apropos of nothing but the desire to give her a hat tip for her consistently excellent reporting over the years. She's a rarity.

Her article in today's paper about the upcoming imposition of a tariff on imported shrimp is a good example.

It seems the Commerce Department has decided in a ruling issued tuesday that "China and Vietnam have been dumping their product in the US market at unfair prices."

When I read that, my question was "unfair to whom?"

That was answered the very next paragraph when I read the word "tariff". Unfair to whom? US shrimpers apparently. It seems that because of China and Vietnam, and to a lesser extent Thailand, Brazil, Ecuador and India, American consumers have been able to enjoy their favorite seafood at a much lower price.

Well, by God, not any more.

According to Wally Stevens, President of the American Seafood Distribution Association:

If U.S. shrimpers were to get the penalties they want, shrimp prices would rise 44 percent, he said.

That's right ... 44%.

So what was the horrible thing these countries we're putting up tariffs against did?

In its petition, the group said government statistics showed that shrimp from the six targeted countries plunged from an average of $3.54 per pound in 2000 to $2.55 per pound just two years later. During the same period, the average dockside price of Gulf of Mexico shrimp dropped nearly in half, to $3.30 a pound.

Heaven forbid ... they delivered an equal product at a lesser price. Well surely there had to be something underhanded or illegal in all of this to have the government get involved and invoke tariffs, wouldn't you think?

Stevens said the reason Asian exporters can deliver a cheaper product is not because of illegal trade practices but because they can raise shrimp on highly efficient farms. The United States has a colder climate, so Americans must catch shrimp in the wild, burning up expensive boat fuel.

Let's review. Legal and more efficient methods produce an equal product at a lesser price, which is then shipped to US consumers and allows them to enjoy this commodity at an affordable price. Check.

The special interest known as the Souther Shrimp Alliance then petitioned the government to penalize these efficient producers as a method of ensuring the survival of our local inefficient industry (simply because it was local) and have the consumers in the US foot that bill. Check.

Now, someone, anyone out there ... defend this action for me, will you? Tell me why it is right to penalize US consumers and efficient producers in order protect an inefficent industry such as American shrimping just because its local?

Claiming election year politics and pandering for votes doesn't count, because this happens in off years as well.

Seriously ... I'd like your opinion.

TrackBack