Round 1 consisted of the US and China each attaching “Buy Domestic” requirements to their stimulus packages and both screaming that they were unfair. Today, in Round 2, the International Trade Commission ruled that China had been unfairly dumping tires in the US. The tidal wave of low cost Chinese tires had disrupted the US tire market and forced tire plant closings by Goodyear, Continental Tire, and Bridgestone/Firestone. However, none of these companies were the complainant. The group that was crying foul was the United Steelworker union.
As a consumer, I like having the Chinese tires as an option. Even if I don’t buy their tires, the low cost option makes the higher quality tires become more price competitive. That’s a good thing for me. I can then take the money I saved and buy more groceries, or maybe a movie night for the family. Either way, my disposable income works its way into the US monetary system. You’d be hard pressed to make a case that a low cost (as long as it is safe) option is a bad thing for the consumer.
This begs the question of who is harmed then. Clearly, the Steelworkers feel that they have been harmed. However, last I checked this was somewhat of a free market economy. If they can make a tire that performs as well and is cost competitive, then what is the problem? I guess the problem is that they can’t compete. That is a problem – on many levels.
I can remember paying $750 for a DVD player. Not a really nice one, mind you. This was when they first came out and it was an average player. Today, thanks to low cost producers, you can get a DVD player for about $35 – maybe less if you look hard enough. Is that bad for the economy?