Mexico's Cemex May Sell Two U.S. Plants to Brazil

Forbes ^ | 11.15.2004 | Associated Press

[Willie Green]

No doubt you have a complete revisionist library.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is only his proposal to construct a utopian collectivist alternative that was in dismal error.

Willie and Marx are in agreement and they're right except for that one little problem.

[LowCountryJoe]

For [amusement] and [dissection] only. Not [likely] for [a conservative to] use.

Willie, why is it that your rhetoric more closely follows the "rise against the bourgeois"? of Marx

[the invisib1e hand]

No doubt you have a complete revisionist library.

The only reason I bothered to respond to your previous cheap shot was because I hoped that you would show me where Smith (the elder), for one, was in agreement with Marx about the consequences of free trade.

I shouldn't be disappointed, should I? /rhetorical question

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only reason I bothered to respond to your previous cheap shot was because I hoped that you would show me

Willie no longer feels the need to show. He makes his silly assertions and runs away.

[Willie Green]

Well here is one passage where Smith warns of the social consequences:

Excerpted and condensed from:

Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Chapter 2

Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries
of such Goods as can be produced at Home

"There seem, however, to be two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry...

• The first is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country....

• The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former....

As there are two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, so there are two others in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation; in the one, how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods; and in the other, how far, or in what manner, it may be proper to restore that free importation after it has been for some time interrupted....

• The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours....

• The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, how far, or in what manner, it is proper to restore the free importation of foreign goods, after it has been for some time interrupted, is, when particular manufactures, by means of high duties or prohibitions upon all foreign goods which can come into competition with them, have been so far extended as to employ a great multitude of hands. Humanity may in this case require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence. The disorder which this would occasion might no doubt be very considerable....

[the invisib1e hand]

OK, good, thanks for posting some Adam Smith. Now, the only case that possibly applies to the issue of cement here is 1), but this can be readily dismissed because it is not a necessary to the defense of the country.

As to Smith's position on what we've been calling "free trade," as indicated by these passages, he seems to be saying that, aside from the wisdom of prohibition of free trade in goods that are necessary to the defense of the nation, "free trade" is a matter of deliberation, that is, not strictly forbidden nor wholesale endorsed, but subject to deliberation on a case by case basis.

I don't see much agreement with Marx here but I don't want to harp on that. (I guess you could say that I don't want to Harp On Marx. /comic relief

As an aside, have you read the passages where Smith make a case for a flexible currency?

[Willie Green]

Now, the only case that possibly applies to the issue of cement here is 1), but this can be readily dismissed because it is not a necessary to the defense of the country.

They may not have the glamor of high-tech, but basic construction materials such as cement and steel are indeed vital to national defense.

Furthermore, one could easily make the case that federal labor, safety and enviromental regulations (along with others) imposed on these domestic industries are equivalent to the domestic tax that Smith referred to in case #2.

[the invisib1e hand]

They may not have the glamor of high-tech, but basic construction materials such as cement and steel are indeed vital to national defense.

Though I doubt this will satisfy you, in Smith's day, and I daresay he might have been willing to deliberate the point, these basic industries were more strategic. These are fungible goods now. Not that I think they should be given away.

Furthermore, one could easily make the case that federal labor, safety and enviromental regulations (along with others) imposed on these domestic industries are equivalent to the domestic tax that Smith referred to in case #2.

Isn't he making the case that where the foreign has imposed a duty on our export, a similar duty on the importing of that foreign's goods is perhaps justified? This is not the same as imposing a duty on the foreign's cheaper import because we tax our own production.

[JohnathanRGalt]

his conclusions are not Writ, are very apt to be fanciful, and we all know that his key premises were incorrect.

Anybody calling itself "the invisib1e hand" should already know that Marx's analysis of the economic consequences of free trade was in complete agreement with other classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It is only his proposal to construct a utopian collectivist alternative that was in dismal error.

That's not what I get out of Karl Marx's words either -- Marx is making a facetious, reverse logic, arguement here:  "In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

We see a similar line of reasoning by liberals after the election -- "it was a good thing that Bush won because it will pave the way for a Democratic victory in 2008".  For example, Michael Moore consoling distraught Democrats by telling them to look on the 'bright' side of Bush's re-election in "17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists...": "Bush will become so cocky and arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office".

Of course, what conclusion would you expect from someone like me who named himself after a character in an Ayn Rand novel.

[the invisib1e hand]

<,i>Of course, what conclusion would you expect from someone like me who named himself after a character in an Ayn Rand novel.

just who are you, anyway?

[chmst]

Nope that's Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua that owns the Dakota plant. It's a different Mexican cement company. They also own a plant in NM and they are trying to build one in Pueblo CO but they have run into years worth of NIMBY lawsuits.

[Fiddlstix]

There's no reason anyone would want to hire American workers when they'll work for a tenth as much in Mexico. This must be some mistake.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Willie Green]

Isn't he making the case that where the foreign has imposed a duty on our export, a similar duty on the importing of that foreign's goods is perhaps justified?

Not at all. Read it again, closely:

The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter(the domestic industry). In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former(the foreign industry)....

This is not the same as imposing a duty on the foreign's cheaper import because we tax our own production.

That is EXACTLY what Smith is saying we should do.
If we don't, then the policy would tyrannically favor foreign industry over our own domestic efforts.
Which, BTW is exactly what our own government is doing to our own industries.

[the invisib1e hand]

OK, point made. this is the logic behind the citrus tariff, which I have had reason to pay attention to of late. the cost of production here is (naturally) higher than that of Brazil, the other elephant in citrus; and therefor we impose a tariff on their juice which of course is back-doored in the global markets. But, then again, there's nothing to really keep domestic producers from taking brazilian juice and selling on the US exchange -nothing, that is, besides the law- but that is merely speculation on my part (i'll take the pun).

thanks for pointing out my error.

[1rudeboy]

Oh my God. The Brazilians have taken over a portion of our cement-making industry. Should I stock-up on SPAM?

[1rudeboy]

Hey Willie, are we running out of cement? Think of the national security implications! [hoot]

[1rudeboy]

How dare you provide information to this thread? Don't you realize that you are in the protectionist echo-chamber?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh my God. The Brazilians have taken over a portion of our cement-making industry.

Tony Soprano will be very upset if he has to use Brazilian cement for his cement galoshes.

[1rudeboy]

Compare this with Willie's quote at #1:

Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticizing freedom of trade we have the least intention of defending the system of protection.

~Karl Marx, "On the Question of Free Trade" - January 9, 1848