More Thoughts on Trade Enforcement
In addition to the sock safeguard action against Honduras, the U.S. government recently requested arbitration over alleged violations by Canada of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement. (We’ve written about this long‐running dispute here, here, and elsewhere). Under the SLA, Canada is required to restrict the volume of its exports or impose an export tax (or some combination of the two) when the prevailing monthly price falls below U.S. $355 per million board feet.
The deal, which the Canadians signed with guns to their heads, was agreed during a period of a robust housing market and relatively high lumber prices. With the decline of the U.S. housing market, lumber prices have gone south, and the stipulation that Canada intervene in the lumber market has kicked in.
Enforcement in this case, then, means that the housing market slump will endure longer than it has to. Builders will be less capable of offsetting rising mortgage rates with lower priced homes, as the cost of their most important input remains artificially high.
Even the cost of nails should be expected to rise and for the same reason — enforcement. On Tuesday, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined preliminarily that imports of certain steel nails from China and the United Arab Emirates (co‐winners of the 2006 Congressional Pinata of the Year Award) are being sold at less than fair value in the United States and causing material injury to domestic producers. Additional duties are likely to be formalized by the end of the year.
Thus, the administration’s indulgence of Congress’s demands for more trade enforcement will have the noble effect of making life more difficult, in particular, for Americans at the lower end of the income spectrum, who will need to devote more of their limited resources to housing and socks. More often than not, trade enforcement is just another term for regressive taxation.
