Talk:Dumping (pricing policy)/Archives/2013

Not so Old talk

When the article says that, in international trade, dumping means "exporting its product to another country at an export price below the domestic price (normal value) in the manufacturer's own country," what does "the domestic price (normal value)" mean? Does that mean the equilibrium price if foreign firms were not allowed to compete in the domestic market -- regardless of how non-competative the domestic market is? Or does it mean the cost of production that a domestic firm would experience if it produced the good? --Ryguasu 01:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reworded the definition; I think it better reflects reality now. – Smyth\^talk 16:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, what if the firm is "domestic" in the sense that it is owned by people living in the domestic country, but the majority of the work is actually performed by outsourcing to foreign firms? Could such a domestic firm be accused of "dumping"? --Ryguasu 01:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. – Smyth\^talk 16:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is dumping illegal? The WTO says that it "does not pass judgement" as to whether or not dumping is unfair competition. Doesn't sound very illegal. Eddie_the_dog

I put a section about the Common Agricultural Policy in, I just wrote this off the top of my head from what I've read elsewhere so if there are any glaring factual errors then I apologise. - anonymous

"True dumping (by a technical definition) is actually very difficult under free trade, and is condemned (but not prohibited) [1] by the WTO." - My economics text book, 'Economics from a global perspective, 2nd edition", By Alan Glanville, states: "Under WTO rules, countries are allowed to impose trade restrictions on products which are being 'dumped'. Of 160 anti-dumping investigations carried out gy the GATT/WTO in the year 194/5, 27 were against China 17 against the EU or its member states and 10 against South Korea. Other countries accused of dumping include Indonesia, Thailand, the US, Russia, Brazil, Taiwan, and Mexico." xcipher

This article needs something about "zeroing," a controversial method the US uses in calculating 'dumping' This has been a subject of complaint from the EU before the WTO. I don't understand it, and can't find it elsewhere in the Wikipedia. - LikeGreen

"Zeroing" is a tactic used by the US Department of Commerce (DoC) in calculating original "preliminary" and "final" dumping margins on foreign goods. A domestic party claims injury caused by dumping and files a petition with the US International Trade Commission. If they believe the case should be investigated the DoC is instructed to open a file. The DoC collects data on US sales of the disputed import product and data on sales of like products in the foreign exporters market. That foreign market price is what they call the "normal value." For each transaction they note a dumping margin - the difference between the US sale price and the normal value price. If the US price is higher, there is a positive dumping margin assigned to that transaction. If the normal value is higher, instead of assigning a negative dumping margin, the US assigns a zero value to that transaction. When all the numbers are averaged the zeros artificially inflate the resulting dumping margin. In some cases the result is that the DoC assigns a dumping margin to products that should not have had one at all. Several countries have filed complaints against the US with the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. In January 2007 the WTO Appellate Body ruled against the US in case DS322. link to WTO decision I'm not sure if the DoC has stopped the practive or not. For a discussion of zeroing from the pro-trade side see freetrade.org. [1] For a non-biased review of zeroing see the American Society Society of International Law. [2]

During the investigation the DoC assigns a "preliminary" rate to the importer alleged to be dumping. During that period they may still import but for each entry they must post either cash or a surety bond (with Customs & Border Protection - CBP)to cover the amount of dumping duty that may later become due. Most, of course, opt for the bond if they can get a US Treasury approved surety company to sell them one. When the DoC finishes their investigation they issue the "final determination." Once the final rate is published in the Federal Register CBP no longer accepts surety bonds to cover the entries (so long as the final margin is in excess of 5%.) The importer now has a specific duty percentage assigned to its products that is over and above the normal tariff for that item. This extra duty is intended to level the playng field for the injured US producers. (While the Byrd Amendment was in effect - roughly 2000 to 2007 - the US petitioners actually received the dumping monies from CBP. After much domestic and international criticism the law was repealed and the money is now going into the US Treasury again.)

I'm new to this. I have some experience with dumping though and I would like to do a lot with this page. Please give me some feedback on whether or not the above is appropriate for the article page. - 95McCartney (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Computer Dumping

I think this article should mention outputting (dumping) the contents of system memory, i.e. a core dump. Akira 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes little sense. Core dump is completely unrelated to dumping (pricing policy). If a reader wants to know about core dump, it seems rather likely they will check out the disambiguation page at dumping rather then dumping (pricing policy). If this article we at dumping, then it would make sense to link to the disambiguation page (but NOT to talk about core dumping individually) but since this is the dumping (pricing policy) page, there is no need to link to the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page doesn't link to core dump and it probably should so you are welcome to add it there, but not here Nil Einne 11:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I had posted my message while half-asleep, and I didn't notice the "pricing policy" in the parenthesis until after I submitted the message. Akira 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Article misleading?

The article appears to suggest the purpose of penalising dumping is to solely protect domestic businesses. AFAIK while the laws are often designed to protect domestic business, many modern advocates have diffent views with regards to the necessity of dumping. It isn't just about protecting domestic businesses but ALL competitors and consumers. The idea is that dumping may be used to gain a market share and/or kick competitors out of the market. Once the company accused of dumping gains the desired market share and/or destroys all significant competition, they are then free to raise their prices as desired as it is may be rather difficult for competitors who were affected by dumping to re-establish themselves... Nil Einne 11:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Most mainstream econ textbook will some to the same conclusion that actual cases of using dumping in orer to gain long-term market share are extreamely rare. Even in those few cases where this idea has been proposed, the plan is still not feasible.

You're talking about the theory of predatory pricing. Most economists don't take that seriously anymore.Anarcho-capitalism 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

The external links section currently links to two articles at the MISES insitute which adovocates "classical liberalism" and which are not surprisingly opposed to dummping. There are no other external links except for something on the WTO position (which probably should be in references anyway). For balance, we need some links in support of dumping Nil Einne 11:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why? This is not an argument, there is no POV being expressed here. -- Librarianofages 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is balance: the MISES articles are opposed to anti-dumping regulations, and the regulators are obviously in favour of them. – Smyth\^talk 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Price discrimination

Price discrimination? No, that is when the same good is sold at different prices to different people. It's a completely unrelated concept. There _may_ be price discr. in dumping (if the dumped good is sold at higher prices elsewhere) but it's just completely wrong to say that dumping is a form of PD. I strike that line (it looks suspciously like the kind of "helpful" addition that is often attached to the start of an article anyway) 213.184.192.82 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

History

I removed this text from monopoly:

During the 1980's, Japan was accused of 'dumping' goods below cost on the American market in an effort to increase market share.

This article could use more material that explains historical dumping controversies, such as this one. -- Beland 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Social dumping?

The mention to social dumping here does not make much sense. It is an entirely different concept with no relation to dumping at all. Dumping refers to output pricing policy while social dumping refers to competition in inputs markets. The reading of a summary paper by de la Dehesa may clarify this point [3]. 164.15.69.36 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

dumping

hiting dumps whit a pice of wood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.66.233 (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why goods such as crops that developing countries are best at producing are still at a disadvantage?

Please explain this.118.123.200.135 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)