But, of course, we won’t do that in the United States. New rules from OSHA and the EPA are going to drive up those costs even more. The Obamacare mandate is going to run-up health care expenses for these businesses (like it is for everyone else), mandatory wage increases are going to drive up labor costs. All this while the price for sugar drops because of the Mexican government.
Other nations get this. They see what’s happening in the US—how we hobble our own economy, how we pretend to have a free marketplace when all they while it is heavy with negative interference from our government. Their response is to further tilt the field in their favor, to ensure that their regulatory costs are kept low, to work to keep operating costs low. And, most importantly, to massively subsidize their sugar industry to ensure that they can undercut more efficient US firms.
It is a base form of economic warfare, and we have done it to ourselves.
The only thing we can do is work to ensure that our firms are protected. We believe in markets. We believe that markets ought to be free. But so long as other nations do not, we have to make sure that we protect our interests.
That’s where the “Zero-for-Zero” sugar policy comes into play. It says that we will reduce the barriers to other nations to enter our sugar marketplace when they reduce their own barriers. When they stop massively subsidizing their firms in an effort to undercut our own.
It is a way of ensuring that the realities of governmental meddling are accounted for. We cannot confuse false markets with free markets, and right now, the international marketplace for sugar is anything but free.