1. Was the establishment of a minimum floor price for tomatoes consistent with the free trade principles enshrined in NAFTA?
The minimum floor price was set but ended up not helping the U.S. growers, the value of the Mexican tomato exports triple over the same period to $2 billion. Consequently, the Florida production had fallen 41 percent since the NAFTA went into effect. Florida growers complained they could not compete against the low wages and las environmental oversight in Mexico. They also believed Mexican growers were dumping tomatoes in the U.S. market below the cost of production.
2. Why despite the establishment of a minimum floor price have imports from Mexico grown over the years?
Mexico grown tomatoes were more competitive
…show more content…
Do you think that Mexican producers were dumping tomatoes in the United States?
Yes, I believe Mexico was dumping tomatoes into the United States, this was done to monopolize the U.S. market by driving U.S. producers out of the tomatoes producing business.
5. Was the Commerce Department right to establish a new minimum floor price, rather than scrap the agreement and file an antidumping suit against Mexican tomato producers? Who would have suffered?
Yes, I do believe that the Commerce Department was right to establish a minimum floor price, this helped the U.S. tomatoes producer stay in the market even through Mexico was more advance in producing tomatoes, the U.S. producer would have benefit from antidumping suit against the Mexican tomato producers, this would have only allowed them to export a certain amount of tomatoes into the United States. Mexican tomatoes producers and tomatoes buyers would have suffered.
6. What do you think will be the impact of the new higher floor price? Who suffers?
Mexican producers will suffer because they have invested billions in their development of greenhouses to grow their product, United States growers will benefit from this because Mexico would have less of a competitive advantage with the new floor price. U.S. producers would have more of a competitive market for producing tomatoes. Mexican producer would not continue to dump tomatoes into the U.S.
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immigrants-gains-speed-after-nafta. NAFTA boosted regional trade but had some undesirable effects. The Mexican government used to subsidize corn. It kept the crop price high so small farmers could stay in business. And it kept corn product prices low so poor people could eat. The trade agreement removed tariffs in order to lower costs and encourage investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The Mexican government ended its corn subsidy, and the U.S. government continued to subsidize highly productive American corn producers. Seventy-five thousand Iowa farmers grew twice as much corn as three million Mexican farmers at half the cost. U.S. corn flooded Mexico. Illegal immigration led to massive militarization of the border. In Mexico, manufacturers built new factories for cars, TVs and other goods, replacing some jobs that used to be in the U.S. NAFTA benefited corporations operating in all three countries, but it led to flat or lower wages for the working classes in all three
I am writing to inform you of my concern toward the recent repeal of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. This repeal has negative effects on the men and women who call themselves America’s farmers and ranchers. As a consequence, these men and women are the ones who bare the cost of this decision. In addition American agriculturalist will lose $7.2 billion that this trade agreement will bring. These gains come primarily in the form of lower tariffs. Arguably current tariffs hinder the sale of Missouri agricultural products, and we must view agriculture markets at an international level not just the domestic level.
Feedback: An increase in the dollar price of the peso—an appreciation of the peso and depreciation of the dollar—reduces the price of U.S. exports and increases the price of Mexican exports.
Another one of the New Deal's contradictory reforms was the National Industrial Recovery Act. The principle was to establish minimum wages and prices and general labor regulations. On one hand, it sought to keep wage rates high and give the consumer greater purchasing power. On the other hand, it established hundreds of legally sanctioned industry-wide cartels that were allowed to establish standard wages, hours of operation and minimum prices on their own terms. The minimum prices meant that businesses would be prevented from underselling each other. The artificially high wages also meant that unemployment would continue to rise. High prices for goods were not the right path to take since the United States economy was in the biggest depression it had ever seen. In 1935, the Supreme Court declared the NRA unconstitutional, on the grounds that the United States government had no right to regulate intrastate commerce, since it was a power usually granted to state governments. To replace parts of the NRA, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Board and
between the three countries. By the end of the 1900s there were 4,000 factories in
Disregard the new tax from number three. Now assume the government imposes a price ceiling of $100 in this market, as the result of protest of price gouging by sellers. What would happen to the price and quantity in this market?
Looking at the Sensitivity analysis report produced by Solver (appendix 2.1, the sensitivity analysis on the previous model), we see that the shadow price for Grade A tomatoes is $271.50 (per 1000 lbs). This means that RBC should be willing to pay up to a maximum of $271.50 to obtain an additional 1000 lbs of extra grade A tomatoes without making a loss. This is true for up to an additional 600,000 lbs. Beyond that, the value added by the extra tomatoes would be insufficient to be profitable. Hence the management of RBC should evaluate the amount of profit they wish to make on the AA batch and accordingly set their max price well below the shadow price. If their marketing strategy dictates that it is more important to capture market share, RBC may
This is done to attract manufacturing of goods in Mexico. “The U.S. tariff schedule provision known as 9802, formerly known as 806/807, greatly assisted the development of the Maquiladoras industry. This permitted U.S. goods to be exported to Mexico and face a duty only on the value added when the finished product is imported back into the United States”. In 1996 40% of all Mexican exports to the U.S. were from the Maquiladora program. Also the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce conceived a group named “Transformation 2000”, whom would inform and educate all manufactures on the Maquiladora programs by the year 2001”.
The United States has a history of changes to the minimum wage law. “Early in the administration of the FLSA (Fair labor Standards Act); it became apparent that application of the statutory minimum wage was likely to produce undesirable effects upon the economies of Puerto Rico and the Virgin islands .In 1949, the minimum wage was raised from 40 cents and hours to 75 cents an hour for all workers. A 1955 amendment increased the minimum wage to $1.00 an hour with no changes in coverage. The minimum wage increased to $2.00 an hour in 1974, and $2.10 in 1975, and $
to an additional 600,000 pounds of grade ‘A’ tomatoes could be purchased without affecting the
I think that it was fair for the Commerce Department to establish a new minimum floor price. It showed that the department realized that Mexico had a competitive advantage against Florida and they tried to make the best out of the situation. This price floor had been in for 16 years prior to be changed and I think it was a necessary change. If they would've filed an antidumping suit it would have disarranged the whole agreement. Tomato producers all over the United States would've benefitted from an antidumping suit since it could have possible deterred Mexican farmers from wanting to export to the United States of America. An important fact to note is that states like Florida and California would have been able to capture some of the tomato market share within the United States of
Sarah Talley and Wal-Mart are in a distributive negotiation as they only haggle about the price for 4th of July Watermelons (Lewicki, Saunders& Barry 2011). Rather than giving a “why” Wal-Mart persists with the position that the price is “too high” (Sebenius & Knebel 2006). In price-only negotiations only one party can win. Furthermore, there is a huge power difference due to Wal-Mart’s high position of strength which is based on their size (Lewicki et al. 2011). In the end these negotiations ended with Wal-Mart having to pay higher prices and with Frey Farm selling less volume at lower profits as they became a co-managed
If the government puts in a price ceiling, then the quantity demanded will exceed the quantity supplied, meaning that not enough goods or services will be supplied to satisfy demand. This situation is called a shortage. Because price ceilings are installed in the interests of
On January 1, 1994, the nations of the United States, Canada, and Mexico entered into a three-way partnership to supposedly lift trade barriers and improve production in all three countries. This is called the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, the effect was generally ruinous for southern Mexico. Trans-national corporations from Europe, Asia, and especially North America invested heavily in closing down factories inside their nations (primarily for environmental and labor costs) and establishing new ones, almost all of which