Overblown ogre of 'outsourcing'

The Washington Times ^ | 18 Aug 03 | By Bruce Bartlett

[.cnI redruM]

Everybody seems to be worried about manufacturing these days. All the Democratic presidential candidates condemn the practice of "outsourcing"

[harpseal]

Since the net of exports positive versus imports negative your number is a negative number. When discussing trade policy if one looks at only the costs not the benefits of any proposed policy one does not gather enough information. If one looks only at the costs not the benefits then one will justify no action no matter how beneficial. If one looks at only the benefits then every action no matter the cost is one we should take.

Now by your calculation we should impose massive tariffs more than i propose becaue the number is such a negaticve net value.

Please let me know if you wish to actually engae is economic debate I do really prefer it to misleading one line answers.

If your position is so good why do you have to engage in obvious deception to try and support it?

[jim_trent]

Used to be is right. They went bankrupt (no, that is not right -- they were the most profitable trailer business in the US until a Wall Street Raider took the company down) about 8 to 10 years ago. Everything was sold off. Someone bought the name, but it is not the Fruehauf that used to be.

Interestingly, the company did not go bankrupt immediately. It struggled on for 6 or 7 years. The Wall Street Raider (Asher Edlman (sp?)) took a bunch of money for himself and then it was sold to new owners. They took a bunch more money for themselves and sold it again. This went on for 4 or 5 times. Each new owner took more money for themselves until there was nothing left.

This was something that had nothing to do with competition. The Wall Street Raiders of this world saw that company (and a bunch of other ones) as ripe for plucking and to hell with the workers, suppliers, or customers. Unfortunately, there are some here who approve of this.

[harpseal]

At least your response is quantitative, but you shouldnt call numbers 'insulting' just because they challenge your views. They are what they are, interpret as you wish.

I did not call the numbers insulting per se the numbers are teh numbers I called your interpretaion of the numbers insulting to anyone with an intellect. I stad by that characterization of your interpretation.

I would add though that our GNP has grown much since 1940s, so if anything, the manufacturing numbers show a lot more technology content (eg cars, planes, drugs, semiconductors and computers) now than before.GNP includes imports and is measured in dollars and needs to be adjusted for inflation.

Also, the point on coal and lumbe is useful but imho tells a different story: As our economy has grown, resource-extraction industries and resource commodities have become a smaller share of overall economic pie - technology and services has grown in the gap. That trend will imho continue as it should under conditions of improving productivity.Clearly resource extraction has become a smaller share of our economic pie. That is precisely the point why any argument that manufacturing is not declining based on these figures of percentage comparison is totally bogus I manufacturing stays stagnant in real terms and I am certainly not arguing that it has done so since the 1940's while another sector shirks for whatever reason the percentage of manufacturing within either the GDP or GNP goes up.

Infering specifics as to what grew and what shrunk from an overall percentage comparison is not only not justified it is IMHO opinion an attempt to mislead. In fact it would be possible if teh other sectors of the economy merely shrank more tahn teh manufacturing sector for teh manufacturing sector to show a gain.

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[johnb838]

While I think the sunshine may be a bit overblown here, I have thought for sometime that a mexican auto part produced with cheap labor is worth nothing if it's too shoddy to be used in a car. Likewise if the indians build a computer system and nobody can understand it or use it, then that savings turns into a loss.

[1rudeboy]

Some standard protectionist arguments:

10. Marx "favored" free-trade, therefore free-traders are Marxists,

9. The Founding Fathers "favored" tariffs, therefore protectionists are patriots,

8. Corporations are inherently evil, and should not be allowed to make a profit I think is excessive,

7. The U.S. doesn't manufacture anything anywhere, and exports nothing to no one,

6. Foreign countries subsidize entire industries, which is socialist and bad, therefore we should subsidize ours, which allows the "free" market to flourish,

5. Foreign corporations here "repatriate" profits to their home country,

4. U.S. corporations overseas do not repatriate their profits here,

3. There are no jobs here that I will do, but illegals are taking our jobs,

2. My job can be done better by a robot, or some fly-infested Third Worlder, therefore the government should protect my job, and

1. Government intervention in the markets causes no economic dislocation, but failure to intervene results in economic dislocation.

[harpseal]

10. Marx "favored" free-trade, therefore free-traders are Marxists,

Actually not all Free Traders are Marxists only those who describe our current system as Free Trade and who deny the Adam Smith arguments for Tariffs.

9. The Founding Fathers "favored" tariffs, therefore protectionists are patriots,And you have a problem, with this why?

8. Corporations are inherently evil, and should not be allowed to make a profit I think is excessive,

Actually I do not subscribe to this and while some peopel who argue for tariffs may subscribe to it they are not consevatives and are not arguing for me and thsie who subscribe to artional policy on trade.

7. The U.S. doesn't manufacture anything anywhere, and exports nothing to no one,

No wthis is not a an argument made by anyone who as looked at the numbers which do however show a decline in the number of manufacturing jobs to to offshoring of those functions.

6. Foreign countries subsidize entire industries, which is socialist and bad, therefore we should subsidize ours, which allows the "free" market to flourish,Quite right. At least you can read and understand I wass begining to wonder. And your argument with this is?

5. Foreign corporations here "repatriate" profits to their home country,

Now why is this an argument against tariffs or in favor of tariffs I do not follow the connection. It has bever been one I made. I am really quite happy there is a Honda plant in Ohio it contributes to teh American economy and is good for the American economy albeit bad for the Japanese econonomy of course the GM plant in China is good for China and bad for the USA.

4. U.S. corporations overseas do not repatriate their profits here,

Now who ever said this? US Corporations overseas even ghave federally guaranteed insurance to assure that profits from overseas in vestments are convertabel and subject to repatriation. Now onbe of the current problems with our trade envirornment is the taxpayers may be more hook for living up to this guarantee as China is talking of nationalization of several industries.

3. There are no jobs here that I will do, but illegals are taking our jobs,

Actually I have never ever seen such a post. i have seen posts complaining there are no jobs available where I am and there is no way to economiczally move to a better job. I have heard people say there are no good paying jobs because there are Guest workers in teh USA filling those jobs but that is a far cry from wjhat you posted. I have also stated that illegal aliens do tend to do a number of low paying jobs that are a whole lot better than collecting welfare for the person who enters such a job.

2. My job can be done better by a robot, or some fly-infested Third Worlder, therefore the government should protect my job, and

I have neevr ever seen this posted in fact if you had bothered to look at my remediation program it encourages investment to increase American productivity.

1. Government intervention in the markets causes no economic dislocation, but failure to intervene results in economic dislocation.

Now please cite a single example of where I suggested governements intervene in Free Markets. Now you alleging that a tariff which is a tax collected for teh right to bring foreign goods and services into the USA is a Free market intervention implies either that the globe is a free market which it is not or that there is included with some part of the US Constitution such a right. In which case I refer you to Article 1 of that document.

Now I could consider such misrepresentations a form of lying and probably should but I am in a good mood toady because I realize that anyone who has bothered to follow these threads will Check my 13 point plan for what I actualy advocate.

[harpseal]

By the way let me know when you can follow arguments well enough to at least reproduce them if you ever manage to.

[1rudeboy]

Awww . . . did I hurt your feelings? I simply posted the most common (here) arguments in favor of protectionism, in response to yours.

I've read your multi-point plan. Many times. So many times, in fact, that I wish you'd spend more time teaching it to your ostensible allies. At least you have a brain.

[bert]

On steam engines there were governors to prevent them from speeding up out of control.

So it is with outsourcing.

It keeps wages reasonable and makes workers stick around.

[bert]

Once a day is more than enough.

[harpseal]

Awww . . . did I hurt your feelings? I simply posted the most common (here) arguments in favor of protectionism, in response to yours.

I don't get my feelings hurt easily if I did I would have been long gine from Free Republic before these economic discussions come up.

My problem was with your miststatements of some of the arguments.

I've read your multi-point plan. Many times. So many times, in fact, that I wish you'd spend more time teaching it to your ostensible allies.

Well I am just a poster on Free Republic. I can no more control other posters than you can.

At least you have a brain.

My initial response is to say thank you. I shall leave it at that for the moment. Now if you want some of the other arguments against teh current trade envirornment to add to your top ten.

The government subsidizes overseas investment.

China has 70% tariffs average on american exports to them.

China and India have manipulated their currencies.

Over two hundred years of American history supports that protective tariffs benefit the USA.

these should be in your list and you really should be a little more accurate in your listing.

[harpseal]

Once a day is more than enough.

I guess that all depends on one's ability. I certainly would never say that to my lady. You are free of course to say whatever you wish to yours.

[null and void]

Once a King, always a King.
But once a knight is enough...

[harpseal]

Speak for yourself. I do admit after age fifty it was not like in my 20's but I will not go into stroies as such is not appropriate for this forum.

[null and void]

You, sir, were not married to Margaret...

[harpseal]

As I said speak for yourself I am only 54.

[harpseal]

You, sir, were not married to Margaret...

I have been married twice never divorced (I hate cancer). I was fortunate to have found two absolutely wonderful ladies to share my life with.

You sir have my deepest sympathy.

[harpseal]

Another Freeper was kind enough to send me the link for this quote which I will challenge anyone to disprove based upon the source it comes from.

“India’s tariffs are today, more than ten years after the beginning of economic reform, the highest in the world, except for those of Pakistan, according to the World Bank.”

[harpseal]

By the waqy the link is http://www.uscib.org/index.asp?documentID=2468