The FedGov Bravely Protects US From Cheap Shrimp

[shrimp]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/us_trade_shrimp

"More tariffs.":shrimp

Share this

Oh, Mother of God -- there's

Oh, Mother of God -- there's a 'Shrimp Task Force'? Bwahahahaa!

OK, I've been seeing this

OK, I've been seeing this article all sorts of places today, and I have one question for those of you better educated on the subject than I am.

Seems to me that the general complaint is that these shrimp are being sold at below market value - this link doesn't use those words, but other articles do.

Now, isn't ANY price that an item sells for "market value" by definition? I'm excluding "loss leader" types of sales here, as that is slightly different, I think, and probably not what the Chinese and Vietnamese are doing here.

Am I wrong about what constitutes "market value"?

No, you're right. You've

No, you're right. You've seen through the bullshit which is the entire body of work on "dumping" as a meaningful economic concept. There is no such economic concept of the "fair price" of a good; there is simply the point at which someone will exchange X amount of money for Y amount of product, which is then the 'price' at that moment.

The idea of the administration is that the US price is the "real price" and that any deviation below domestic producers' suggest prices is the result of mean old furriners who wont play by the rules. The usual paranoia goes something like this:

* Evil Foreign Country A's government (or even just the producers) decide to wage economic war on the US to eventually monopolize the world market (or the US market) in Good X.

* EFC-A's government "subsidizes" the mass production of good X, lowering the price (aka "dumping" too much of good X on the US market so US producers 'cant get a fair price').

* US producers can't compete and go out of business

* EFC-A, having driven out the US producers, jacks the price up higher than the US 'fair price', and laughs all the way to the bank while US consumers pay more and are unemployed.

Don't expect the narrative to make sense, even internally; that's not the point. The point is whether it can get people to suspend disbelief long enough to agree to the corporate welfare (er, protection) for the producers by way of tariffs.

Thank you Mr Doss, glad to

Thank you Mr Doss, glad to know I am understanding the nuance correctly.
I seem to recall something very similar to the shrimp incident happening a little while back with Vietnamese catfish, but the government solution there was to rename the foreign catfish something different - THEN pass all sorts of protectionist tarifs.
Outrageous.

Chris, you can also apply

Chris, you can also apply that logic to "eminent domain":http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/cgi-bin/archives/012651.html.

When the gov't takes property through eminent domain, they theoretically are supposed to pay a "fair market price" for the property. The screwed part is that the gov't alone decides what a "fair market price" is, and you can't refuse their offer.