Posted on 10/25/2006 5:56:53 AM PDT by from occupied ga
There are only a handful of products that Americans import that cannot be produced at home and therefore create jobs for Americans. Let's look at a few of them.
We import cocoa from Ghana and coffee from African and Latin American countries. We import saffron from Spain and India and cinnamon from Sri Lanka. In fact, India produces 86 percent of the world tonnage of spices. There's absolutely no reason these products cannot be produced by Americans, and we could be cocoa, coffee and spices independent.
You say, "Williams, that's crazy! We don't have the climate and soil conditions to produce those products. Many spices, for example, require a moist tropical environment." No problem. We have the technology whereby we can simulate both the soil and weather conditions. We could build greenhouses in which to grow cinnamon trees and get our scientists to create the same soil conditions that exist in Sri Lanka. Greenhouses could also be built to simulate the climate conditions in Africa and Latin America to grow cocoa and coffee. In the case of cocoa, the greenhouses would have to be Superdome size to accommodate trees as high as 50 feet.
You say, "Williams, that's still crazy! Imagine the high costs and the higher product prices of your crazy scheme." I say, "Aha, you're getting the picture."
There are several nearly self-evident factors about our being cocoa, coffee and spices independent. Without a doubt, there would be job creation in our cocoa, coffee and spices industries, but consumers would pay a much higher price than they currently do. Therefore, nearly 300 million American consumers would be worse off, having to pay those higher prices or doing without, but those with the new jobs would be better off.
So let's be honest with ourselves. Why do we choose to import cocoa, coffee and spices rather than produce them ourselves? The answer is that it is cheaper to do so. That means we enjoy a higher standard of living than if we tried to produce them ourselves. If we can enjoy, say, coffee, at a cheaper price than producing it ourselves, we have more money left over to buy other goods. That principle not only applies to cocoa, coffee and spices. It's a general principle: If a good can be purchased more cheaply abroad, we enjoy a higher standard of living by trading than we would by producing it ourselves.
No one denies that international trade has unpleasant consequences for some workers. They have to find other jobs that might not pay as much, but should we protect those jobs through trade restrictions? The Washington-based Institute for International Economics has assembled data that might help with the answer. Tariffs and quotas on imported sugar saved 2,261 jobs during the 1990s. As a result of those restrictions, the average household pays $21 more per year for sugar. The total cost, nationally, sums to $826,000 for each job saved. Trade restrictions on luggage saved 226 jobs and cost consumers $1.2 million in higher prices for each job saved. Restrictions on apparel and textiles saved 168,786 jobs at a cost of nearly $200,000 for each job saved.
You might wonder how it is possible for, say, the sugar industry to rip off consumers. After all, consumers are far more numerous than sugar workers and sugar bosses. It's easy. A lot is at stake for those in the sugar industry, workers and bosses. They dedicate huge resources to pressure Congress into enacting trade restrictions. But how many of us consumers will devote the same resources to unseat a congressman who voted for sugar restrictions that forced us to pay $21 more for the sugar our family uses? It's the problem of visible beneficiaries of trade restrictions, sugar workers and bosses, gaining at the expense of invisible victims -- sugar consumers. We might think of it as congressional price-gouging.
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
"Wal-mart killed off Win-Dixie, Albertson's, the Supersaver, and the Bi-Lo."
That's odd. I don't do my big grocery shopping at Wally World, but there are two Super Wal Marts in my area, and not only are the other chain supermarkets thriving, we are getting a Wegmans (heard good things about them).
That was just my experience. Wally killed off a lot of business in this town.
We all seem to be talking around each other. I cherish the past. The idea of talking to the person who made the food you put on your table, handing them money and a handshake is old fashioned, but my biggest kick lately has been going to orchards to get my apples, the famer's market for produce, a local craft show to buy my basket. Wal-Mart is just not the same.
I suggest you try Harris Teeter, if you have one nearby, or, if you live in a place like my speck outside Charlotte (Waxhaw and the surrounding area) you can get some fresh produce from the local farmers (which I find superior in many cases).
Butthe main point, I guess we've both been making it, is that it is ultimately counter-productive to both the consumer and the general economy to engage in policies whihc serve to LIMIT people's choices for the short-term benefit of "better prices".
Heck, I'd buy a piece of hand-crafted furniture made in Hickory, NC (or even the pre-fab stuff made in Thomasville)before I bought anything imported from China and sold as furniture in Wal-Mart, price be damned!There's a more important principle at stake; my neighbors made that stuff and they need to earn a living too, you know!
We agree.
there are industries with which we could not live, with the same quality of life we now enjoy
A specific quality of life is not an entitlement. And it cannot be legislated by trade policy.
Many of those industries are losing out to foreign competition,
That is the problem to address, and it cannot be solved by trade policy. Businesses that cannot compete need to address the causes of that problem. If the problem is government policy, it needs to be changed politically. And it is mostly a problem of government policy in my view.
they take the easy way out and stiff their workers.
How? By not losing money due to non competitive labor costs? And not to be underestimated is the huge cost of regulation and health care in that equation.
The easy way out that you speak of is trade policy. The difficult way is to actually figure out how to get competitive. The country doesn't seem to have the political will.
there will be no more steelworkers, auto workers, or even plastic ashtray producers left.
The idea that Americans cannot produce what they need if better alternatives dry up is one which I dismiss.
Oh, and by the way, creating large numbers of service-sector jobs that pay minimum wage to replace manufacturing or professional positions that pay a much higher one, eventually pays dwindling economic returns.
That's a Democrat talking point, and I'm not trying to say anything about you by pointing it out.
--I cherish the past. The idea of talking to the person who made the food you put on your table, handing them money and a handshake is old fashioned, but my biggest kick lately has been going to orchards to get my apples, the famer's market for produce, a local craft show to buy my basket. Wal-Mart is just not the same.--
I remember in my old neighborhood (a northeastern city) a separate store for fruit/vegetables, another one for meats, grocery delivery boys etc. I hear you. Actually the big-box hardware stores (HD, Lowe's) killed off more small business in my neck of the woods. We did have a Woolworth's that closed 8-10 years ago; that place looked straight out of the 50s!
How about rubber, tin and nickel
Let me agree and reiterate that point. It seems almost unamerican to me. We concern ourselves more with prices than actual values. Our neighbors are using skills passed down through generations to make that piece of furniture. The money stays local, it helps put food on the table, and the workmanship is outstanding.
Or we can get cheap easily broken crap from China and save a few bucks. I don't want my home to be filled with stuff made by some slave robot chained to a machine that is crap. Why do folks think this way is better?
Then you would simply eliminate all tarriffs? That would be analagous to removing the braking system from a new car because you regard it as desirable to go fast when you have somewhere to go. I'd like to get there fast as well. But I recognize that I need to be able to slow down and stop along the way. Crashing into the final destination is getting there, but not getting there in one piece. Tarriffs properly implemented are a brake that lets us benefit from trade with foreign producers without wrecking our economy in the process. You might disagree, but thanks for reading and replying anyway.
How about importing what we need to import which are generally things that we've always imported.
It truly is more convenient to get your dry cleaning done, your hair cut, your eyes examined, your tool set, your meat, your vegetables, your dry goods all inside a Wally World. I am not disputing that at all.
It's cheaper too. But the quality suffers. Why don't folks admit it? Your local butcher knew more about meat than the pimply faced kid at Wal-Mart. Your hardware guy actually builds things with his hands. Your local vegetable shop has personal relationships with the local farmers guaranteeing you fresh product that didn't have to travel refrigerated for 3,000 miles (or more). When people pretend that this isn't part of the equation, they can call me irrational, but it's the kettle and the pot time. We sacrifice alot for the cheaper prices. Stick that in a ledger.
"That kind of empire is passe."
And so is the British Empire. Your point is? When I made that comparison it was to contrast an assertion from Alberta's Child that your personal standard of living has to be worse than that of your trading partners in order to achieve wealth and economic health.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
If you want an example from the other end of the spectrum, I refer you to the former Soviet Union. That's a society that eschewed market capitalism and it's standard of living never rose much beyond pre-revolutionary days, even at the height of it's power and industrial might. It seems thatthe Soviet Union (and it's successor states) were only "profitable" in the destructive sense (arms sales) and not the constructive (i.e. for the world consumer market) sense. The Soviet Union managed to last 75 years with virtually no appreciable increase or decrease in real, measurable standards of living.
--If you want an example from the other end of the spectrum, I refer you to the former Soviet Union. That's a society that eschewed market capitalism and it's standard of living never rose much beyond pre-revolutionary days, even at the height of it's power and industrial might. It seems thatthe Soviet Union (and it's successor states) were only "profitable" in the destructive sense (arms sales) and not the constructive (i.e. for the world consumer market) sense. The Soviet Union managed to last 75 years with virtually no appreciable increase or decrease in real, measurable standards of living.--
No argument with any of that.
yes
That would be analagous to removing the braking system from a new car because you regard it as desirable to go fast when you have somewhere to go
Not in the least analogous. If you want to go for an automotive analogy, our current situation would be like having sand instead of oil in your transmission and getting rid of the tariffs would be like replacing the sand with oil.
That is not a reasonable conclusion. Absent force or fraud, in a free society, that will never happen. Those things are available here now and will be in the future. It's called supply and demand. Price will determine the availability.
But let's look at it. If all domestic and all non Chinese foreign production of furniture ceased, the moment demand for the products you describe surfaced, the industry would rise to meet that demand with adequate supply. In a free society, it happens in the blink of an eye.
True, and the partial ban on imports otherwise know as tariffs are causing a partial reduction in your standard of living already.
Why would that be desirable in and of itself?
Hey, are you calling my bulk ignorant?
I will thank you to stop trying to tell me what I think -- you've not been right yet, and I have no hopes that you're capable of doing so in the future.
I'm really not interested in what you have to say on this matter, because you are clearly unwilling to consider anything beyond your own opinions ... and your opinions are one-dimensional at best: they do not show any evidence of sustained and serious thought about the full set of issues in play.
I am anti-everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.