On Thursday, October 19, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) held a hearing to determine what actions should be taken to “remedy” supposed damage done to Whirlpool’s washing machine business by foreign competitors LG and Samsung.
The hearing came on the heels of an ITC ruling that Whirlpool suffered injury from increased imports of LG and Samsung residential washing machines. If this disastrous ruling is upheld, consumers and potentially taxpayers will have to bear the burden of higher costs and lower quality.
During testimony, Whirlpool’s attorney recommended levying a 50 percent import tariff on washing machines from LG and Samsung – which somefear would discourage both companies from carrying out their direct foreign investment plans that have been in the works for years.
The ITC “global safeguard” trade case, under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, is a rarely used and deeply flawed provision and statute. Contrary to misinformation spread by Whirlpool and its advocates, safeguard cases have nothing to do with illicit or legitimate anti-competitive practices. In fact, these maneuvers amount to little more than crony capitalism and protectionism designed to buoy a struggling domestic industry. Never has Section 201 been used – nor was it intended – to target specific competitors as the Whirlpool petition does.
More
The hearing came on the heels of an ITC ruling that Whirlpool suffered injury from increased imports of LG and Samsung residential washing machines. If this disastrous ruling is upheld, consumers and potentially taxpayers will have to bear the burden of higher costs and lower quality.
During testimony, Whirlpool’s attorney recommended levying a 50 percent import tariff on washing machines from LG and Samsung – which somefear would discourage both companies from carrying out their direct foreign investment plans that have been in the works for years.
The ITC “global safeguard” trade case, under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, is a rarely used and deeply flawed provision and statute. Contrary to misinformation spread by Whirlpool and its advocates, safeguard cases have nothing to do with illicit or legitimate anti-competitive practices. In fact, these maneuvers amount to little more than crony capitalism and protectionism designed to buoy a struggling domestic industry. Never has Section 201 been used – nor was it intended – to target specific competitors as the Whirlpool petition does.
More
0 comments so far,add yours