MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Feeling the Pinch: U.S. Lobster Exports Tank Thanks to Trump's Trade War

The Chinese tariffs have clobbered the lobster market, with prices falling to two-year lows.

Xinhua/Sipa USA/NewscomXinhua/Sipa USA/NewscomFor a good illustration of how tariffs and trade wars can warp the usual rules of an economy, look no farther than the Maine lobstermen who are hoping to catch fewer lobsters.

After hauling in record-levels of lobsters in recent years—many of which were sold to China—lobsterman Willis Spear told NPR in July that he's "praying for a few less lobsters" this year.

"If there's less, there'll be a bigger demand," he said.

What Spear probably means is that fewer lobsters will increase prices, which have been falling since early July when China imposed new tariffs on a wide range of American exports—targeting not only lobsters, but also soybeans, pork, whiskey, and more—in response to President Donald Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum, and roughly $50 billion worth of other exported goods. The Chinese tariffs have clobbered the lobster market, with prices falling to two-year lows and exports to China down 64 percent, according to data reported this week by the Portland Press Herald.

That's because a Maine lobster is now subject to a 25 percent tariff when it enters China, but a lobster harvested from just up the coast in Nova Scotia is subject to only a 7 percent Chinese tariff. It's no surprise that Chinese buyers are turning to Canadian lobsters.

Stephanie Nadeau, a lobster dealer, tells the Press Herald that Maine is having trouble competing with Canada. Her company has already had to lay off workers.

"The boats will survive. Many dealers will not," she tells the paper. "The longer it goes on, the more damage is done."

And the damage caused by Chinese tariffs is compounded by American tariffs on steel and aluminum, which have increased the prices to buy and repair lobster traps.

What's the antidote to this chaos? Ending the trade war would be a good start. What's happening to lobstermen in Maine is pretty similar to what's happening more than 1,000 miles west, where soybean farmers and other agricultural businesses have been bearing the brunt of Chinese tariffs.

Instead, Trump seems determined to do exactly the opposite. Another round of tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports seems imminent, and the president has threatened to go even further, though it's unclear how serious those threats are.

American consumers might benefit from lower prices for lobster, at least temporarily. But the cost is lost jobs and, indeed, even the loss of an incentive to catch lobsters—as Spear suggests. It leaves lobstermen with a perverted choice between doing their jobs and accepting lower prices, or hoping for fewer catches and relatively higher prices. Either way, China's rapidly growing market for lobsters is now closed to American businesses.

"It's like any other crop or harvest with supply and demand," Lobsterman Bob Morris tells the Boston Globe. "It's always the farmer or the fisherman who ends up paying."

Photo Credit: Xinhua/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sudden||

    Lobster industry post with no lobster girl pic.

    This place has really gone downhill

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What's a lobster girl?

  • Untermensch||

    First image here.

  • Sudden||

    Thanks, I was googling to try finding it.

    Lobster girl w glorious sideboob was a regular fixture of reason posts from 2006 to 2012 before they bowed down to the cultural censors of sjwism. Although I think it was a copyright issue they claimed for no longer posting her.

  • CE||

    Bring back X-box girl.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    I'm just wondering if Carpet Humping Guy ever mastered his body weight.

  • Untermensch||

    At some point a few years back Reason said it woudn't post the lobster girl picture anymore. I don't recall why.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Prettier than Robby, and they didn't need the inter-office rivalry.

  • John||

    According to Suderman's Twitter feed there is a Reason Dungeons and Dragon's game. They should live stream that.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hey, whatever happened to the RPG game that BUCS was gonna run?

  • Red Tony||

    I'd run one on the comments section, but it'd SUCK.

    SO.

    MUCH.

  • CE||

    But he still has better hair.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Welcome to Hit & Run

  • John||

    So lobster is now cheaper for US consumers. And this is a bad thing why? The tariffs are a bad thing for Chinese consumers who apparently can't afford lobster now. But they are a good thing for American consumers.

    Not every story can be spun to support your world view.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Thought the same.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Assumes Americans want that many lobsters.

  • John||

    They clearly do or the lobsters would not sell. They just only want that many at a lower price.

  • Sudden||

    Oversupply means price reduction which increases demand so that normal people can afford to eat slightly more lobster.

    Koch bros will have to use monocles and caviar to signal their superiority to us proles now

  • Echospinner||

    Bread if you could get it was near free in communist Romania.

    Government cannot determine the price of anything.

  • John||

    Yes it can. The price of things varies in different markets. And if the government controls a market it can totally determine the price of something.

    You have to understand that the price of something is not set in stone. There is a minimum price that is necessary for it to be possible for people to produce and sell something at a profit. What the price is above that is just a question of supply and demand.

    What you are talking about is the government stepping in and making the price of something below the cost of making it. That is something the government cannot do.

  • Echospinner||

    You are willing to let one crappy business man set the price of anything. Tarrifs by edict from the president are just that.

    Last week he gave business advice to Ford, Nike and Apple. Heh.

    Free market capitalism. Start with that.

  • Homple||

    Yep. The seen: Lobstermen crying the blues about lower prices.

    The unseen: me able to afford lobster now and then.

  • DPICM||

    Or another unseen - Lobstermen get extra vacation days out of new tarrifs because they no longer have to fish as much to maintain same price levels.

  • ||

    I'm sure the factory workers living on $4500 a year are who all the lobster and whiskey are going to. Corrupt regional governors and party officials probably rely predominantly on the soy and *maybe* splurge on some pork if they have an exceptionally productive quarter.

  • sarcasmic||

    A relative of mine owns a company that exports lobsters. He's lost a quarter of his business thanks to Trump's trade war.

  • Sudden||

    And thousands of steel and aluminum workers lost their livelihoods over the last 20 years due to Chinese subsidized and dumped steel. What was your response to their plight?

  • Echospinner||

    Cmon I was born in Youngstown.

    Response? Get out and get a job.

  • Homple||

    Feel free to convey your advice to displaced lobster workers.

  • Echospinner||

    They would be fine without stupid government intervention.

  • eat the gristle||

    You don't even see to realize what you did there.

  • Sudden||

    I hope the hundred bucks you save on your next car feels worth it watching your 46 year old neighbor who has worked in the steel industry his whole life have his career offshored and forced into selling other cheap Chinese made crap at the local Kohl's all while making half of what he used to and wondering how he's gonna pay his bills and if his wife is gonna leave himand take the kids now that he's a wreckof a man.

  • sarcasmic||

    What if instead of being put out of work by competition from China, he was instead put out of work by competition from California? Would that make a difference to you? Or what if he was put out of work by shifting consumer demand, or changing technology, or new materials, or something else other than China? Who would you blame then? Who would you tax to "fix" it?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    How is what you describe any different from imposing a tax to have a government program that provides jobs?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If your neighbor's job only exists due to subsidies, then your neighbor is just as much on the dole as if he received a direct welfare check. It's just that in the former case, the welfare is hidden and called "trade policy" instead.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dude, you're saying that action and inaction are the same thing. You're equating the Chinese response to Trump's protective tariffs putting people out of business with not using tariffs to keep people in business. You know who else equates action and inaction? I'll give you a clue: he also equates not taking with giving, and not giving with taking. Same logic. Or illogic to be more accurate. You really want to stand by that?

  • Sudden||

    And you're acting as if Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs occurred in a vacuum. They are a response to unfree trade practices, particularly dumping and subsidy of Chinese steel, in a way that fundamentally distorts any claim of free market trade.

    I don't make my policy analysis in some fictional pareto universe that assumes total economic freedom, total rationality, and is immune from geopolitical concerns. China, as the rising power in the world, has been attempting to crush a critical infrastructure industry of its chief rival for global economic and military hegemony through trade practices that aren't free (yes I know longstanding US ag subsidies and dumping sense a similar function). And that's not even addressing currency manipulation.

  • sarcasmic||

    China has been making us richer by selling us stuff for less than what it would cost for us to produce it ourselves. That's how trade works. The more we trade, the more we are dependent upon each other, and the less chance there is of a shooting war.

    Yeah China is rising, but it has a long way to go before it is a real threat. Making ourselves poorer with economically ignorant trade policy isn't going to do us any favors in that regard.

  • Sudden||

    That's ghetto investment advice right there. No, we're not "richer" by having cheaper and therefore more non-durable goods. We're richer by making more money and keeping what money we do earn. If trade were making us richer, why have we had declining real wages since 1970? If trade were making us richer, why is the savings rate so low, why are so many living check to check? If trade were making us richer, why is almost all GDP gain accruing almost uniformly to the top 1% usurers and FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) industry titans? I realize trade isbut one aspect here as immigrationand and monetary policy play significant roles as well, but nevertheless trade hasn't made us better off. We may have materially more then we once did because prices have fallen, but we also have a higher tax burden to support those forgotten men tossed aside in the chaos and the eyesore of rampant homelessness, opiate abuse, and general despondency.

    No, we're not richer. We have more cheap trinkets we don't need. Those cheap trinkets are less durable than the ones we used to produce for a marginally higher cost, but kept our neighbors employed and our communities livable.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So what's your solution then? Autarky?

  • Sudden||

    Absolutely not. Trade is necessary and can be good or ill but requires a fair trading partner (which china most certainly is not, particularly in relation to steel).

    Honestly, the root problems in this world don't have political solutions.

  • sarcasmic||

    We're richer by making more money and keeping what money we do earn.

    Money is not wealth. If money makes you rich, then you'd be best off selling everything you own, stuffing a suitcase with cash, and sleeping on a park bench. You won't have any cheap trinkets, but you'll have all kinds of money! You'll be rich! Or maybe you'd be a crazy homeless person with a huge bank account.

    If trade were making us richer, why have we had declining real wages since 1970?

    Again, money is not wealth. Wealth is what you can buy with the money. Today the average person with those declining wages has air conditioning, a flat screen tv, a computer, a smart phone, internet, a car that won't break down all the time and die after 100K miles, can listen to music without a record or eight track, and so on and so forth. Who is richer? The person with that great 1970s wage, or someone alive today?

  • sarcasmic||

    We may have materially more then we once did because prices have fallen, but we also have a higher tax burden to support those forgotten men tossed aside in the chaos and the eyesore of rampant homelessness, opiate abuse, and general despondency.

    You're saying we have more stuff but less money, and that makes us poorer. Again you're equating money with wealth. Wealth is what you buy with money. If you can buy more stuff then you're wealthier.

    Those cheap trinkets are less durable than the ones we used to produce for a marginally higher cost, but kept our neighbors employed and our communities livable.

    I see. You have godlike powers to divine what people need and don't need? You should be a Commissar.

    but kept our neighbors employed and our communities livable.

    The reason your neighbors aren't employed and your communities aren't livable is because your government doesn't let anyone engage in economic activity without asking permission and obeying orders. The problem is too little trade, not too much.

  • Sudden||

    No, wealth is the value of assets you possess. Your new iPhone does not mean you have wealth equal to its retail value because the second you own it and use it its value diminishes substantially. Trinkets aren't appreciating our even value holding assets. They are non durable items that decrease one's actual wealth

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So what are your conditions for "fair trade" then?

    And how is this "fair trade deal" enforced?

  • Sudden||

    Not dumping and subsidizing. Pretty simple. That is neither fair nor free trade. And when someone punches you (dumping), you punch back.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So why is dumping a problem?

    Dumping is when the exporting nation taxes its own people to subsidize a below-market price in the importing nation. The exporting nation is literally making its own people poorer so that the people in the importing nation can have cheaper goods. They're harming themselves for our benefit. If they are punching themselves, shouldn't we continue to let them?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And by "punching back", what you mean is, "they tax their people to subsidize 'unfair' prices over here, therefore, we should tax our people to subsidize 'unfair' prices over there!" So it's not enough that China is punching itself, you want the US to punch itself too?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And I thought you didn't want the hard-working salt-of-the-earth people to be on the dole. If by "punching back" you mean that US farmers should get subsidies to export soybeans at below-market prices, because China is subsidizing its exports to sell at below-market prices here, why would you want these hardworking farmers to go on the dole?

  • Sudden||

    Because critical national infrastructure with military implications and luxury foodstuffs are interchangeable.

    Fucking lolberts reducing everything to interchangeable widgets as always. And you wonder why the youth are running fast as they can away from libertarianism.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh give me a break on the "critical national infrastructure" bit. No one really believes these tariffs have anything to do with any real concern for national security.

    But even still, if the Chinese government taxes its own citizens to subsidize steel exports to this country, that allows the US government to build more tanks and bullets and ships with the money it has, why stop it? They are hurting themselves to let us build up our military more!

  • Sudden||

    And this notion that trade is a strategy to peace through interdependence is historically illiterate. Germany was Britain's biggest trading partner before the first world war, and actually suffered immensely in ther early stages of the war because they playe imported so many of the materials required for munitions from Germany. And frankly, china is trying to cripple the United states by destroying a key national defense industry in steel.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Others were hoping America would implode so Anarchy-land would become a reality.

    Trump changed all that and reset America's slide into the abyss. One way is Trump fighting for the 'as close to free trade as America can get' with our trading partners strategy.

  • Nardz||

    Seems like your relative better adjust to the times and get a new job.
    Maybe he can go into IT

  • sarcasmic||

    He wouldn't be in this jam if not for the bad haircut in the White House. Sad thing is, he probably voted for the guy.

  • eat the gristle||

    Well, the haircut and his own stupidity and failure to diversify.

  • Juice||

    So lobster is now cheaper for US consumers.

    Where? I've been told that lobster prices have been cratering for a couple of years now because of abundant supply, but I have yet to see any discount lobster. It's still as stupidly overpriced as always.

  • sarcasmic||

    The price they're talking about is what the fishermen get at the docks, not what you pay at the store.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, the two have zero relation.

  • sarcasmic||

    The store will charge what the market will bear. If the store's cost goes down they are under no obligation to pass the saving to customers if the customers are willing to keep paying the higher price.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Sounds like an opening for some smart middleman. Buy Maine lobsters, sell them to Newfies, who sell them to China. Seems like there is 18% gross profit to be had.

  • Homple||

    China already did stuff like that to avoid US tariffs on their stuff by gaming NAFTA, passing it through Mexico and Canada.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>"It's like any other crop or harvest with supply and demand,"

    yes, Bob yes it is.

  • John||

    If the US stops the export of a commodity so that it is in greater supply domestically and is thus cheaper to domestic consumers, is it poorer for doing so?

    I am not sure that it is. For every dollar a producer loses from not being able to sell the product overseas, a consumer in the US gains by being able to purchase it at a lower price.

  • damikesc||

    That is the logic why free trade is so vital. So, i dont see why it fails here. The US consumer isnt harmed and who gives two fucks about other countries? They shouldnt be our concern.

  • Sudden||

    The argument against unrestricted free trade (although when discussing China's steel and aluminum using the term "free trade" is a farce) is another prioritizing producers over consumers.

    Fuck consumers. Westerners consume too much. It's made them fat and docile and effeminate. I would rather pay more and thus consume less if it means my neighbor has a job and can raise a family instead of being dependent on the dole and despondent to the point of opiate abuse,

  • Nardz||

    Difference being, unlike a lobsterman, manufacturing capability is vital to the US.

    World War II was won over the Japanese and Germans because we could outproduce them. It's why our two front war was successful, while Hitler's was not.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Welcome to the Scandinavian welfare state!

    Bernie Sanders says thanks for your vote

  • Sudden||

    Jesus, way to be dense. Bernie and the rest of the demsocs are fundamentally materialist in their thinking, just like you guys are. Bernie wants the lower caste to be given the largesse excised from the rapacious upper caste. You want the rapacious upper caste to indulge in gluttonous consumption while the lower caste begs for alms in the street.

    All I want is for all of us to stop defining ourselves by consuming things, to have the dignity of doing a hard days work and enough to raise a family, and to have some meaning and purpose in our lives beyond gadgets and status symbols

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What if I like consuming things?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You want the rapacious upper caste to indulge in gluttonous consumption while the lower caste begs for alms in the street.

    You sound more and more like a BernieBro with every comment

  • Sudden||

    I should clarify that I findthe lower caste to be equally, if not more, rapacious

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I thought the lower caste consists of the salt-of-the-earth hard-working steel mill workers.

  • Sudden||

    Were it only so. We've all been conditioned and sold this lie chat you are what you own, that you consume. We have artificial identities carved out over apple vs android, Chevy vs Ford, etc. It's not making anyone happy. It's time for a philosophical and temperamental shift in consciousness

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What if I'm happy with the consciousness that I have now?

  • eat the gristle||

    Then you wouldn't constantly whine about everything, yet you do.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Fuck consumers. Westerners consume too much. It's made them fat and docile and effeminate

    What gives you the right to dictate what a person's freely chosen spending habits ought to be?

  • Sudden||

    I don't view the world in terms of rights. I view it in terms of obligations. And my obligation to my fellow man is to free him from the tyranny of materialism and awaken the human spirit within him

  • sarcasmic||

    And my obligation to my fellow man is to free him from the tyranny of materialism and awaken the human spirit within him

    Poverty is so romantic.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, that sounds all noble and shit.

    But what if I believe I have a different obligation.

    Who decides which obligation is right?

    Maybe you should be free to pursue what you believe is your obligation, and I can be free to pursue what I view to be my proper obligations.

    Sounds fair?

  • Sudden||

    The addict always rationalizes that he's free to choose, even when he knows he's an addict

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So I'm the addict, lacking free will?

    Maybe you're the addict, and I'm the one acting with full control of my faculties.

    Either way, suppose I am an addict. What do you think should be done about me and my "addiction" to consumerism? You want to "save" me? Against my will?

  • Red Tony||

    Funny thing is, libertarians also believe in obligations.

    Libertarians believe you have an obligation to LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE THE FUCK ALONE AND LET THEM MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarians believe you have an obligation to LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE THE FUCK ALONE AND LET THEM MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

    But, but, but what if you don't like their decisions? That means their decisions are wrong! We must use government to force people to make correct decisions, and lock them up in cages when they don't! For their own good! Aaauuuugghhhh!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If the US stops the export of a commodity so that it is in greater supply domestically and is thus cheaper to domestic consumers, is it poorer for doing so?

    Instead of dollars flowing between willing buyers and sellers, you now have a portion of those dollars being siphoned off to some government bureaucrat to direct those exports on where they "should" go.

    So yes, it makes us poorer. Unless you think government regulations in general act as fiscal stimulus.

  • Echospinner||

    The US stopped nothing.

    Donald Trump did.

  • John||

    No the Chinese did. Do you think the Chinese don't have agency? I know people give Trump too little credit sometimes but I think you overrate his powers a bit.

  • Echospinner||

    Someone is overrating powers.

    "I beat the people from China. I win against China. You can win against China if you're smart. But our people don't have a clue. We give state dinners to the heads of China. I said why are you doing state dinners for them? They're ripping us left and right. Just take them to McDonald's and go back to the negotiating table."

    DJ Trump.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I wonder how many times Eric got this article back from the editors with a "needs more puns in the title" comment.

  • ||

    What do you think this is, 7th grade? He submitted the article to Reason's editing AI, it came back with a solid ">90% English content, 0 words over 50 characters in length." and it went to print. Those are his puns and his puns alone.

  • damikesc||

    Off topic but, hey, more of those crimes illegals dont do.

    39M stolen SSN from 2012 thru 2016.

    And Obama stopped sending employers letters when the SSN and names on W-2 forms didnt match at about the time he did that bullshit DACA nonsense.

  • damikesc||

    American consumers might benefit from lower prices for lobster, at least temporarily. But the cost is lost jobs and, indeed, even the loss of an incentive to catch lobsters—as Spear suggests.

    I thought these concerns were silly when compared to the lower prices of goods.

    You say that about numerous other fields of work.

  • Sudden||

    Thread winner

  • Homple||

    Yup. Reason's response to domestic job losses due to offshoring or foreign dumping is "Your loss is consumers' gain. So tough titty, move somewhere and learn to code, pour coffee or become an investment banker becuz muh marketz".

    Why it should be different in this case, I do not know

  • Sudden||

    Either because of rank ideology or because their patron sets the editorial standard

  • sarcasmic||

    Why it should be different in this case, I do not know

    Well, shit. I mean, you do have a point. Domestic job losses from offshoring or foreign dumping are directly caused by economically ignorance policy from the White House, just like these... Oh, wait. Those job losses weren't caused by domestic policy. While these ones were. Maybe that's what is different.

  • Nardz||

    Trade agreements are policy, guy.

  • sarcasmic||

    So offshoring and dumping are caused by trade policy? Really?

  • Sudden||

    Dumping is an anti competitive trade practice enacted by foreign governments withthe specific purpose of crushing the industry of the country which is being dumped on. So yes.

  • sarcasmic||

    And the moment the dumping ceases and it that industry becomes profitable again, it starts right back up. If the dumping continues indefinitely then the dumper is subsidizing cheap goods for the dumpee. The dumpee is getting the better deal. And when the dumper ceases dumping, dumpee production starts back up and the dumpee gets the better deal.

    Dumping is a boogeyman created to justify policy that benefits cronies at the expense of everyone else.

  • Sudden||

    The economies of scale required to start up a defunct steel factory do not simply materialize instantly

  • sarcasmic||

    Where there is a will there is a way. And where there is a profit there is a will.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Managed trade pre-trump set that policy.

  • chipper me timbers||

    This is due to CHINESE tariffs on American imports. It has nothing to do with American tariffs on CHINESE imports.

    It's a great example of how tariffs are just self-defeating. Now Chinese consumers are paying more for lobster due to their government's stupid actions. That's what tariffs due, they harm your own people and not much more than that.

  • sarcasmic||

    The CHINESE tariffs were a RESPONSE to TRUMP'S tariffs. There would be no CHINESE tariffs on lobsters if TRUMP hadn't started a fucking TRADE WAR.

    Hurrrr durrrrrr..

  • Nardz||

    "Hurrr durrrr" indeed.

    "Muh status quo!"

    Trump's tariffs were a response to Chinese policy and practices.
    We can go back and forth all day like this.

  • sarcasmic||

    So if Trump hadn't slapped tariffs on all those Chinese imports, China would have slapped that tariff on lobsters anyway? Is that what you're saying?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    China already had all sorts of trade restrictions.

    Google is probably spending millions creating a custom search engine platform that allows the Chinese communists to restrict speech, block non-approved websites, etc.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Muh status quo!"

    That's gonna come in handy.

  • Echospinner||

    Trump has said that he is the Hemingway of Twitter.

    "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yes, I dislike tariffs and hope the trade war ends soon, but ... wouldn't the spread of vegetarianism among men have the same impact on the lobster industry? Only a decline in demand caused by Trump's foolishness can get the left to complain that fewer lobsters will be boiled alive and served on diner plates.

  • Don't look at me.||

    WE NEED MORE KILLING!

  • RoyMo||

    Just as long as it isn't cats!

  • Jerryskids||

    I don't understand why we have to wait for China to impose import tariffs to make us all better off when Trump could just impose 100% export tariffs and we'd be done with it in one shot. No US producer being able to sell overseas means everything has to be sold in the domestic market and the resulting abundant supply would mean lower prices for everything! I mean, if it works for lobsters, it should work for everything, right? And it's not like you'd hear any complaints from the peanut gallery here, they're all too busy sucking Trump's dick to do anything but give a big thumbs-up to whatever sort of economically-retarded nonsense comes out of that fat fuck's face.

  • Homple||

    On the other hand, we could forcibly shut down all production in this country and let the nations of the rest of the world compete with each other to sell us stuff cheap, thus making us better off without working.

  • SIV||

    They give us Patek Phillipe watches, Bugatti Veyrons and Fincantieri yachts, and all we have to give them is little pieces of paper! It's good to be in the paper business.

  • Homple||

    Good to be in the little pieces of paper business until the holders thereof start redeeming them for real stuff. Everything goes swimmingly until it doesn't.

  • Homple||

    Good to be in the little pieces of paper business until the holders thereof start redeeming them for real stuff. Everything goes swimmingly until it doesn't.

  • Homple||

    Good to be in the little pieces of paper business until the holders thereof start redeeming them for real stuff. Everything goes swimmingly until it doesn't.

  • Homple||

    Good to be in the little pieces of paper business until the holders thereof start redeeming them for real stuff. Everything goes swimmingly until it doesn't.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's crazy how a cult of personality can make people willfully ignore basic economics. I know partisans are gonna partisan, but the retarded shit coming from the supporters of that bad haircut boggle the mind.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, you do have a bad knowledge of economics.

  • eat the gristle||

    "simplistic" is a fairly accurate description of his economic knowledge.

  • sarcasmic||

    Better than being willfully ignorant like a Trump supporter.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, look. Merrill still thinks "I'm rubber and you're glue!" is original.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Oh, for the love of God!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • Old Coasty||

    That is not a Maine Lobster, they have claws not spines!

  • Juice||

    So why do I not see this low-price lobster anywhere? You'd think I could get a decent lobster roll for under $15 around here or something, but that's not the case.

  • SIV||

    I was in a Chinese supermarket (in GA, probably Korean-owned but Chinese-focused, not an "international" supermarket) late last week and lobsters were $9.99-14.99 a lb, depending on size. Canadian lobsters too. This price didn't seem cheap. There were some live flatfish (not Atlantic flounder) as a "manager's special" for $24.99 a lb. Although they looked pretty healthy for a "manager's special" live fish they would've run $50+ a piece

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Publix has lobster tails for $6.99

    Most people only eat lobster tails and claws-where most of the meat is.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is the price lobstermen get at the docks. The sellers are pocketing the difference.

  • Slick1||

    You would think these lobstermen would just do what the chinese do to get around any tariff and ship their lobsters from a canadian port.

  • buybuydandavis||

    There are winners and losers to any tariff change. Showing one loser is cherry picking. Honest analysis would look at the economy as a whole.

    US GDP Growth Revised Higher to 4.2% in Q2
    https://goo.gl/WT63JR

    Looks like there are a lot more winners than losers.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's like any other crop or harvest with supply and demand,"

    Not really.

    Most crops are *grown*, then harvested, on your own land.

    Lobsters are not raised, they are a finite natural resource, and harvested in a controlled market, where some have licenses to harvest, and you don't. This is not a free market. This is government monopoly access to exploit a natural resource.

    Reason should change their banner to "Monopoly profits in controlled markets at the expense of consumers, because Free Market!"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Freedom isnt free.

    If you want freer trade, sometime you got to play hardball with negotiations.

  • sarcasmic||

    The less freedom we have, the freer we are! Go slavery! Woo hoo!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online