[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This does not punish the wrongdoer in my opinion. Something more punitive is appropriate. I'm not saying the 1916 Act is still appropriate today, but I am saying the WTO Treaty is too weak on this issue.

Well it is punitive - every time he sends his product over, he loses money on the deal without gaining the market share that dumping normally provides.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: A competitive advantage? Surely you jest. You mean the steel industry's competitive advantage or the seamstress unions competitive advantage? Oh, wait, those industries basically LEFT our country due to dumping (in one case) and unfairly-priced labor competition (in the other case). The WTO Treaty has some glaring holes -- there are things that should be accounted for to truly "even the field.

That wasn't because of dumping but because they simply couldn't compete.

You talk about unfairly priced labour competition - other nations might equally argue that the far superior technological edge combined with the developed transport sector and educated workforce to drive the automated industries provides the US with a competitive edge with which they can not compete.

The cottage industry of X sector of bangladesh might well argue that, without the economies of scale that its US counterpart enjoys, it will never be able to compete either, leading to a loss of jobs and downward spiraling wages there.

But your point about the WTO is well made. Perhaps the US should leave the organisation if it feels that the rules are unfair (although the US govt. has never been slow to action when other nations are found to be in breach). However, I have a feeling that this will never come about as the being in the WTO brings the US far more trade than it would have without.