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.
P.S.: Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, Andy Fastow, John Gutfried, and all the rest are NOT aberrations; they are the norm, and in business circles, they are held up as the IDEAL. They are, litterally, CELEBRITIES within their circles. The fact that they are criminals, very often, somehow gets lost in the translation.
So in those cases where you can measure productivity, maybe it's not just based on dollars and cents?
Ahhh, so "stupid bosses" = "bring back slavery", got it!
You're funny!
Sounds like what you're really mad about is that you can't seem to find buyers for your skills on the open market like some other people can.
One possibility just might be that while you were out calling them "slimy bastards", they were spending their time improving their skills so prospective buyers would be willing to pay more.
Expat, I left the Street in '03 and started my own automation consulting company. Last year, the first year in which I actually passed the break-even point, I netted just under 1.5 mil, and hope to come close to that again this year. I employ three other folks, and occasionally farm work out to people I've known throughout my career. There certainly is a market for my skills and I have found one.
Not bad for a kid from Brooklyn, who never studied Comp Sci or Computer programming, and whose degrees are in history, wouldn't you say?
And I call them "slimy bastards" not because I'm jeaolous of their resume or their wealth; I do it because that's what they are. They have sold their souls in the pursuit of money and status, and it eventually consumes them. Past a certain point, the mere accumulation of wealth for it's own sake serves no useful purpose. Many are simply all about accumulation, status and ostentatious display because that's what they believe to be the signal of success; to die with the most toys and perqs. The way in which we treat some executives (they get magazine covers, television interviews, etc) simply whets their appetites. These people want that kind of attention, to be thought of as important.
The fact is that many are far less useful (in real terms) than fleas are to a dog. They happen to be where they are because they often know "where the bodies are buried" and because, in many cases, a corner office is where they can do the least harm past a certain point. They have mastered the art of office politics (quite useful) but very often contribute very little to the day-to-day operation of their domains.
Where I have met competent folks (and lots of them, too!)with real skills, real talent (many of whom I would freely admit leave me in the dust) and (God forbid!) morals, they have often been kept submerged within the corporate structure (because they are simply not willing to do anything they find offensive or questionable, just to keep their jobs or advance their position) or forced out of it altogether. Most leave in disgust, like I did.
"So in those cases where you can measure productivity, maybe it's not just based on dollars and cents?"
No, what I'm saying is that cookie-cutter solutions don't often translate well into different fields or enterprises. You will find that approach is prevalent in many places (everything can be boiled down to a formula, you know) and that other factors, which often CAN'T be reduced to a simple formula go completely unstudied and unexplored, to the detriment of the business as a whole.
So maybe everything isn't just based on dollars and cents?
Good post-- And as far as Walt Williams goes, he's an idiot. His piece makes no mention of our yearly 850 billion dollar trade deficit. That's what his version of free trade leads to.
And deficits are bad because they lead to high unemployment and low growth. LOL!
Walt Williams is a moron. Beware of following in his footsteps. From time to time he subs for Rush Limbaugh and the radio gets shut off the instant I hear the pompous ass. I know his shtick .... I've read his garbage and listened to him on radio. Thomas Sowell is much better. I like his commentaries
LOL!
Beware of following in his footsteps.
As opposed to following in yours?
Should we use only US oil at $200 a barrel or might there be a benefit to using foreign oil at $60 a barrel?
My master plan is to move to a coal conversion (liquefaction) based economy. Gradually change our automobiles over to diesel. Clean coal conversion will produce all the diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel we need. And cut the trade deficit. Oil purchased abroad is more responsible for our out sized trade deficit than the cheap junk you like to buy from the ChiComs.
Clean coal is open pit mined coal from Montana Wyoming and other Western States
Sounds like a good idea. Still doesn't show how the trade deficit is ruining our economy.
Get back to me when you start practicing what you preach. When you go deep into hock to finance today's pleasures and some needs. When you go deep into debt knowing you cannot and will not pay it off.
Who's deep in hock?
When you go deep into debt knowing you cannot and will not pay it off.
We can't and won't pay off our debt?
Still no luck proving our trade deficit is ruining our economy?
Why, because Willie Green said so?
Thomas Sowell is much better. I like his commentaries
And you don't think Sowell and Williams agree on the trade deficit? LOL!
Misconceptions of international trade are the norm in the media. When our trade deficit increases, that is said to be a "worsening" and when it is reduced, that is called an "improvement." Adam Smith knew better than that two centuries ago. But apparently this knowledge has not yet "trickled down" to the media --- or to politicians. [Or to dennisw]
If a growing trade deficit is a "worsening," then why did we achieve our highest level of prosperity last year at the very same time when we had our largest trade deficit in history? Rather than attempt to answer such straightforward questions as these, those who are spreading alarm about the trade deficit say that it "can't go on forever."
A perennial fallacy about international trade is that countries with high wages cannot compete with countries that have low wages. The cold fact is that 19th-century Britain was the leading exporter in the world when it had higher wages than most of the countries that bought its products. The same is true of the United States today.
We don't need more economists. We need more people to take Economics 1.
I worked for a big company for a long time and finally left them seven years ago. I'd wanted to leave earlier but during the last few years those guys pulled a real sneaky thing to keep me from leaving-- they went and paid me enormous amounts of money to hang on.
I've knew a lot of people who left in disgust, but most of us left before we were disgusted. You and I must have the same flash-backs when we I read a Dilbert cartoon or see some movie about 'corporate life'. Self employment is really the only way to go. It's the same story all over, which is why payroll numbers aren't worth a damn when it comes to measuring job growth. CEO's like you and I aren't on no payroll --we create it; but I digress.
I worked for 25 years with government lawyers and government contractors. They weren't all bad, but as a rule I'll say they were 'difficult'. Now I trade equities with guys on Wall Street, and my impression based is that those Street guys are the nicest people I can remember ever having done business with.
Please describe how deep in debt you are. IOW do you practice what you preach in the real world? You have no problem with our trade deficits. What kind of trade deficits do you run in your own life. What kind of debts are you incurring that you plan to never pay off? Houses are paid off in 30 or less years.
Tom Sowell doesn't talk about trade deficits much. Can you find anything more recent than 1999? In contrast, moron Walt Williams does discuss trade a lot. I love calling him a moron because that's what I think whenever I hear him for more than 20 seconds. A big blow hard. It's amusing to see Freepers praise this dolt. Yeah... deficits are great.
He's a bullshitter too unless he shows me his own personal balance sheet larded with debt. Another charlatan who doesn't practice what he preaches
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.