I’m not an expert on washing machines. I am fascinated by the local Baby Bubbles laundromat, though. I know how to get tokens, put them in the machines and push the right buttons.
What prompts me to write this post is the release by the University of Chicago of research findings about the tariffs placed on imported washing machines by the administration in Washington last year in the name of national security (?).
The US washing machine market has three leading competitors, each with a market share of around 15%: Whirlpool, a US-based company, and LG and Samsung, two Korean firms.
During the Obama administration, Washington applied tariffs to washing machines made in Korea. LG and Samsung countered by shifting production to China, which is a typical “country-hopping” response. Ironically, this made the two even more competitive in the US, and consumer prices here continued to decline. The Trump administration took a more heavy-handed approach, by applying a blanket tariff of (to keep the story simple) 20% to all washing machine imports. LG and Samsung responded this time by accelerating the completion of US factories.
winners and losers
Basic economic theory says that increased costs will either be absorbed by the manufacturer or passed on to consumers, in proportions determined by who has market power. In this case, however, all three firms raised washing machine prices by close to 12% …and they raised the price of dryers, which were not subject to tariffs (but which are typically paired with washers when people buy) by the same. That meant both Korean firms recovered the entire tariff plus a bunch.
The net effects: consumers paid $1.5 billion more for washer/dryers in 2018; market shares for LG and Samsung remained unchanged; the government collected $82 million in tariffs; 1,800 new jobs were created (in a workforce of 150 million+). The yearly cost to consumers for each of these new positions? $815,000+.
The winners: LG, Samsung and Whirlpool (although analysts think Whirlpool’s 2019 earnings will remain below 2017 levels).
The losers: the American public.
This is the way protection typically works. It sounds good but has perverse effects. A domestic firm flexes its political muscle to prevent better/cheaper products from entering the country from abroad. In theory, this is supposed to buy time for it to innovate. Most often, however, the protected firm uses government action as a substitute for creating new, better products. The poster children in the US for this type of behavior–and its negative consequences for the economy–are the Big Three automakers of Detroit.
There is a pressing issue in the trade arena–preventing the theft of intellectual property in areas like computer software, advanced electronic manufacturing and biotech. The current administration seems to have abandoned any effort to do so, however, in favor of protecting the income of industries of the past. As an American, this is a worry. As an investor, it argues that one should make a greater effort to explore opportunities in greater China and in Europe.