Lowering Tariffs

Historically, the idea of imposing tariffs by various nations was to protect the workers and the goods they produced. It was a way of eliminating the potential of either cheaper products being imported without restriction, or the fact that some overseas governments were ôdumpingö their products in other nations to gain an economic foothold and advantage. Of course, perhaps the best known revolt against tariffs was the so-called Boston Tea Party, where taxes were imposed on tea, something the colonists felt was prejudice against them by Great Britain.

In more recent years, tariffs have become a political weapon. For example, when France decided not to approve the U.S.Æs invasion of Iraq, there was a threat to impose high tariffs on French goods imported into the U.S., including wines, champagnes, perfumes and cheeses. Many critics felt that the loss of production and jobs in the steel industry to Japan, for example, should be answered with tariffs against imported steel. ôIt's a core belief of European critics that President Bush implemented the tariffs to endear himself to voters in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. So convinced are they of this that the EU threatens retaliatory tariffs to strike back in the same spirit--against Florida's citrus exports, for exampleö (Brooks 4).

The U.S. has a problem, of course, in that some nations- China, especially, now given a ôMost Favored Nationö status- has such enormo

. . .
fference between what producers and distributors, even retailers, feel is fair, and what the consumer feels is fair. The simple fact is that most U.S. consumers are not terribly concerned about who makes the product and how little or how much they get paid for making it. Consternation sets in only when a family memberÆs job is outsourced, or when a yearÆs hard farm labor is undermined by foreign dumping. A good example, again, comes in a NAFTA dispute between Canadian wheat growers and those of North Dakota. ôThe United States imposed tariffs of more than 14 percent on Canadian spring wheat in 2003, the outcome of a trade complaint spearheaded by the Wheat Commission. The tariffs include antidumping duties, levied because Canada was found to have been selling wheat in the United States at below the cost of productionö (Nicholson 1). The idea here, of course, was to not provide an unfair price advantage to the Canadians whop were supposedly selling their wheat for far less than the American farmers were. Punitive tariffs may well occur when there is no monopoly on the goods or services provided. As long as there is an alternative, then we are not Pareto efficient. By definition, öAn allocation is Pareto efficient if there is n
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Antidumping Act, Latin America, DOC July, Wheat Commission, Tea Party, NBC-TV Nightly, China Consumers, Organization WTO, TARIFFS Historically, Congress November, textile industry, below cost productionö, president bush, below cost, womenÆs wear, cost productionö, lower prices, wear daily, canadian wheat, selling wheat, pareto efficient, womenÆs wear daily,
Approximate Word count = 1878
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)