In this recent front page headline story in the Thibodaux Daily Comet, Landrieu calls for imported-shrimp ban, Sen. Mary Landrieu follows the lead of the AFL-CIO in calling for a ban on shrimp from Thailand and Bangladesh. The reason, the AFL-CIO and Sen. Landrieu cite for requesting a ban on importing shrimp from these countries is the condition of labor in these countries. The real reason, of course, that Sen. Landrieu wants to ban any foreign shrimp is to curry favor with Louisiana shrimp fishermen. Of course, as we know from basic consumer and producer surplus analysis, the gains of Louisiana fishermen are more than offset by losses to U.S. consumers who are being asked to pay more for shrimp while they are already paying subsidies for ethanol, higher prices for corn and other grains, and so, for meat, as well.
Of course, a U.S. ban on shrimp from Thailand and Bangladesh will only slightly depress the prices and production of shrimp from those Asian countries. But, for the life of me, I have a difficult time grasping how putting Asian shrimp fishermen out of business or reducing the prices of shrimp in those countries could ever hope to do anything but worsen the working conditions in those countries. If the AFL-CIO or Sen. Landrieu cared anything about foreign workers, they would work to increase their sales of shrimp in the U.S. Surely she would not advocate that other countries ban our shrimp, or any other product from Louisiana as a way of helping Louisianans.
What she and the AFL-CIO are protesting are the low prices that these countries are able to sell shrimp at–prices that worry Louisiana producers.
Here is a short essay written by this blog’s namesake, Bastiat, about a similar request for a ban of an inexpensive foreign import. So cheap, in fact, that the foreign supplier was giving away this cheap subsidy for domestic production of energy.
Consumers, of course, don’t speak up for their own interests because most do no realize that they are in line to be fleeced. Even if they knew, few, except for a handful of seafood restaurants are in a position to realize what is going on or to have an incentive to fight these attempts to take more money out of consumers’ pockets to buy votes for politicians, like Sen. Landrieu, who owe their offices to special interest groups such as Louisiana shrimpers and the AFL-CIO.
-MC
This entry was posted
on Sunday, April 27th, 2008 at 8:42 pm and is filed under Agriculture, General, Political Economy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Putting a ban on shrimp from Thailand and Bangladesh is a situation where you “can’t win for losing.” Most importantly though, the good in this situation outweighs the bad. Lately we’ve been seeing in the news how the American economy is becoming worse, and how the value of the dollar is steadily declining. Well, if the decision is made to stop trading with those Asian countries then wouldn’t it help boost our economy by providing more business for our local fishermen, and therefore putting more money back into our economy rather than into the economy of another country? My opinion, and I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way, is that America works so hard to better other countries while we have so many problems of our own that need to be fixed. It’s better to give than to receive, but sometimes you have to stop and do something for yourself.
Furthermore, if we continue to import shrimp from those countries then they will continue to have problems with sexual abuse, low wages, traces of chloramphenicol in the shrimp and so on, and that can make America seem to support those kind of activities. If a ban is put on the shrimp then yes they will be put out of work (keep in mind that over the past years many Americans have also been put out of work), but hopefully they will learn from what was done and their activities will change. And as for Senator Landrieu yes she may be trying to win over a certain interest group, but that’s just politics. It may be wrong, but it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for years and it’s not about to stop anytime soon.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
This not a good issue for senator Landrieu and the AFL-CIO to be protesting.By banning people from selling shrimp to America from Thailand and Bangladesh creates problems for people in America and Thailand and Bangladesh.
This ban would help the shrimpers of America make more money, however they have more non-shrimpers than shrimpers in America. This means the price of shrimp would increase for most Americans.
For Thailand and Bangladesh the problem of banning shrimp would cause the bad working conditions that they have now get worse because people would loose their jobs.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I recently read the article and was tempted to write a corresponding letter to the comet, but I’m too lazy to go through the trouble. I’ll comment here instead. This ban on shrimp is not in the best interest of the foreigners. There are many times where I turn on the television and hear of people giving free trade a bad name. These opponents of free trade like to say that Americans support child labor and poor working conditions by purchasing their products. How exactly does buying the product make things worse or stated similarly how does not buying their products make things better? Yes, the wages these shrimp workers get paid are probably horrible, but they are working there voluntarily–at least in most cases. I disagree with Irion Christian who states that, “If a ban is put on the shrimp then yes they will be put out of work…but hopefully they will learn from what was done and their activities will change.” The reality is that this won’t change anything for the foreign workers. They will have to find another job with equally low wages and poor working conditions. However, if America continues to import shrimp, conditions will eventually improve.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Irion, take a closer look at the Bastiat essay, “A petition.” You should see the error of your logic. If banning trade makes us better off, than, perhaps all trade should be banned. Maybe we are doing the Cubans a favor by cutting off their trade. You have fallen for the benefits you see rather than those you overlook. Take a look at another essay of Mr. Bastiat, one of his first blog posts–wait, I guess they didn’t have blogs in 1840–well anyway, look at his essay, “What is seen, and what is unseen” at URL: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss1.html .
Unfettered competitive trade maximizes producer and consumer surplus. You see the benefits to our shrimpers, but fail to see the harm to US consumers. The extra we pay for US shrimp could have been used to buy other things, other things we cannot buy because we are helping out shrimpers. This is a very inefficient way to help out shrimpers. And on top of it, we have millions wasted in the fight to get foreign shrimp banned.
By the way, Irion, are we supposed to be teaching lessons to the Thais and to the Bengalis? How is it that we become the teachers of morals to other countries and get to punish them for having their children working. In countries where people are constantly facing starvation, especially Bangladesh, they put their children to work so that their children can be fed.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I don’t know about you, but I can’t tell the difference between a Gulf shrimp and a Thailand/Bangladesh shrimp once they are fried, boiled, or put into a gumbo. I am not for putting Louisiana shrimpers out of business. But then again competition is a good thing and foreign shrimp shipped into the U.S. is good for the consumers. Now if the AFL-CIO and Senator Landrieu are truly concerned about working conditions in these foreign counties, good for them and I applaud them for their humanitarian efforts but we should truly be worried about competition and work conditions here in the US not abroad.
We know that the only thing the AFL-CIO and Senator Landrieu are really concerned about keeping their constituents happy and having shrimp available for their Lobbyist to have at their receptions. The competitive market does not seem to be the priority for them.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 am
I believe foreign shrimp should be banned from the U.S. It will keep the money in our country and help OUR shrimpers. Also, resturants are buying the shrimp for cheaper prices because there is more quantity. These resturants are still selling the shrimp for the same prices as before. Have you noticed any price reductions in shrimp entrees at your favor resturant. Think about prices are going up reguardless of quantity. This means more money for the resturants and screw our shirmpers. This is a good thing to ban foreign shrimp for our markets.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
When looking at this situation in a simple way, Sen. Landrieu is doing nothing more than working in her best self-interest by imposing a trade ban. She gains votes and support from Louisiana shrimpers while spinning the effects on skeptical consumers. Irion is right in saying that it is a game that politicians play, and will continue to play, as long as it works for them.