4 ms·

"After U.S. beekeepers accused Chinese companies of selling their honey at artificially low prices, the government imposed import duties in 2001 that as much as

"After U.S. beekeepers accused Chinese companies of selling their honey at artificially low prices, the government imposed import duties in 2001 that as much as tripled the price of Chinese honey. Since then, little enters from China legally." If Chinese companies were truly selling their honey at artificially low prices -- that is, dumping the honey below cost, in an attempt to destroy the competition -- then this entire scheme would not make sense. Why sell some small amount of honey at below-cost prices as part of an illicit scheme bypassing tariffs? What this truly proves is that U.S. tariffs against Chinese honey producers are not actually based on "artificially" low prices. It's just pure protectionism for an industry group, at the expense of consumers.

sfall 13y ago
if you can get a controlling interest of a market you can then dominate the market. If they can afford a loss for enough time to ensure that they control the market they can raise the price and start really making large profits
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  This. And if you happen to have a powerful government propping you up, and your government expects that as a result of your combined efforts you'll have a monopoly and put the other country's industry out of business, you can afford to operate at a loss for a long time. Look at semiconductor fab plants in Asia, compared to semiconductor fab plants in the US, circa 1980s and 1990s.
s0rce 13y ago
It does seem that way, however, much of the honey appeared to be contaminated or adultered and passed of as higher quality.
- jlmorton 13y ago
  What's frustrating for me is that the Commerce Department never releases any data when they levy anti-dumping tariffs. U.S. tariffs against Chinese solar cells is a great recent example. Where is the evidence that Chinese companies are actually dumping, rather than simply being cheaper?
Steuard 13y ago
You seem to have missed the bits about Chinese honey being commonly collected and processed in non-standard ways (machine dried, it said) that lead to inferior taste, which was then covered up with various additives. Also the bits about Chinese honey often containing residues of antibiotics that are banned in US food. So I read "artificially low prices" not as "dumping below cost" but rather "cutting costs by ignoring legally required quality controls".
- justincormack 13y ago
  Why not ban non-standard honey then, not Chinese honey? I am sure some real honey is made in China.
- malandrew 13y ago
  China has notoriously poor food standards and regulations, and only enforces them when they need to have some heads roll because the public is outraged. Business culture in mainland China is also strongly a "caveat emptor" market, so every buyer is left to their own devices to perform due diligence when purchasing something. In the US, regular inspections and regulations keep things mostly orthodox, and while irregularities happen in US food manufacturer, they are far and few between relative to China. With that in mind, what would be reasonable if providing an exception to the tariff, if, and only if, the Chinese honey manufacturer can demonstrate provably that their honey and manufacturing meet high standards. This should apply everywhere. If these manufacturers were employing better manufacturing methods, their honey prices would probably be more inline with US prices.

sfall 13y ago

if you can get a controlling interest of a market you can then dominate the market. If they can afford a loss for enough time to ensure that they control the market they can raise the price and start really making large profits

BrandonMarc 13y ago
This. And if you happen to have a powerful government propping you up, and your government expects that as a result of your combined efforts you'll have a monopoly and put the other country's industry out of business, you can afford to operate at a loss for a long time. Look at semiconductor fab plants in Asia, compared to semiconductor fab plants in the US, circa 1980s and 1990s.

s0rce 13y ago

It does seem that way, however, much of the honey appeared to be contaminated or adultered and passed of as higher quality.

jlmorton 13y ago
What's frustrating for me is that the Commerce Department never releases any data when they levy anti-dumping tariffs. U.S. tariffs against Chinese solar cells is a great recent example. Where is the evidence that Chinese companies are actually dumping, rather than simply being cheaper?

Steuard 13y ago

You seem to have missed the bits about Chinese honey being commonly collected and processed in non-standard ways (machine dried, it said) that lead to inferior taste, which was then covered up with various additives. Also the bits about Chinese honey often containing residues of antibiotics that are banned in US food. So I read "artificially low prices" not as "dumping below cost" but rather "cutting costs by ignoring legally required quality controls".

justincormack 13y ago
Why not ban non-standard honey then, not Chinese honey? I am sure some real honey is made in China.
malandrew 13y ago
China has notoriously poor food standards and regulations, and only enforces them when they need to have some heads roll because the public is outraged. Business culture in mainland China is also strongly a "caveat emptor" market, so every buyer is left to their own devices to perform due diligence when purchasing something. In the US, regular inspections and regulations keep things mostly orthodox, and while irregularities happen in US food manufacturer, they are far and few between relative to China. With that in mind, what would be reasonable if providing an exception to the tariff, if, and only if, the Chinese honey manufacturer can demonstrate provably that their honey and manufacturing meet high standards. This should apply everywhere. If these manufacturers were employing better manufacturing methods, their honey prices would probably be more inline with US prices.