Replies

protection such as a tariff is the perfect refuge from foreign competition.

Let's dispose of this horsehockey immediately.

The high cost of manufacturing in the USA is principally due to Government regulation and taxation. Another part, not nearly as significant, is due to over-lawyering.

Gummint regs can be broken into two parts, albeit roughly: those pertaining to social justice such as FLSA (wages, hours), ERISA, (pensions/retirement) and to some extent OSHA and EEO. The second part of regulation is largely concentrated in the area of "desirables" such as environmentals--Clean Air, Clean Water, zoning restrictions.

Your argument uses the same logical fallacy as the argument that the USA caused 9/11, that is, that the Gummints of the USA and China are moral equals.

In fact, they are not so. The Gummint of China is damn near the inverse. It actively subsidizes all industrialization; it treats its citizens as chattel (when they are allowed to live;) it enables and promotes the theft of intellectual property; it has ZERO environmental standards, and by the way, does not tolerate a "lawyer class" bent on collecting judgments for ridiculous claims.

Thus, your "moral equivalence" argument is void.

Many of us believe that the FIRST obligation of the US Government is to its citizens--NOT the citizens of China, Japan, Spain, or Pago-Pago. We do not argue that our Government should smash the economies of other countries--merely that our Government PROTECT OUR INTERESTS.

Since our Government has seen fit to make the USA the "high cost producer," it is the Government's obligation to remedy those costs through a flexible, targeted tariff policy.

Please note that I stated the Government's FIRST concern is US Citizens, meaning that FLSA, ERISA, and (arguably) EEO are "off the table." Thus, the tariff should begin with those items, adding the cost of taxation and enviro concerns as secondary/tertiary elements.

For you to claim that seeking redress is "rent-seeking" is spurious. There is NO OTHER ENTITY who has created the problem--thus there is NO OTHER ENTITY which can solve it.

I've written a nationally syndicated column for nearly 25 years. Columns critical of Social Security and handouts to farmers
used to bring the angry self-serving mail. Now it's international trade. Let me address some of the issues raised.

First, it's misleading to say that the U.S. trades with Japan, China, or England. Does one really think that the U.S. Congress
trades with England's Parliament or the Japanese Diet? When I purchased my Lexus, I dealt with a Japanese producer through
an intermediary, the auto dealer. To my knowledge, the U.S. Congress and the Japanese Diet had little to do with the
transaction save attempts to sabotage it through regulations and taxes.

Now the question: what moral standard justifies third party use of force to prevent an American from exchanging with
whomever he pleases, whether that person lives in Montana, Mexico or Japan? Some might rejoin: through trade restrictions,
other countries don't permit their citizens to trade freely. That's true but should we support the notion that, for example, since
the Japanese government doesn't permit its citizens to be free the American government should retaliate by denying its citizens
the right to trade freely?

Is your answer yes or no?

Here's another thought to ponder upon. Because of restrictions on the importation of rice, so as to benefit rich Japanese
farmers, Japanese citizens pay four times the world price for rice. Should Congress retaliate by creating restrictions forcing
Americans to pay four times the world price for rice or some other commodity? Yes, or no?

One writer lamented that there's a deal in the works to permit Vietnam to sell millions of cotton shirts and slacks to Americans.
"But we never hear about what Vietnam will buy from us." Let's look at this. When a Vietnam producer sells an American a
shirt, he gets dollars in return. What's he going to do with those dollars; hide them in a mattress, paper the wall with them, or
just cherish them? It'd be great if foreigners did that; we'd have near heaven on earth. We'd simply put a few Americans to
work printing dollars and the rest of us could live lives of Riley whilst the rest of the world labored and shipped us Lexus,
Mercedes, caviar, steel, clothing and other life-comforting goodies all in exchange for these wonderful little slips of paper called
dollars.

Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. That Vietnamese producer might use those dollars to purchase something from a German
producer. The German producer might use the dollars to purchase something from a Japanese producer. People willingly
accept those dollars because ultimately they represent a claim on something in America. You might ask, "Okay, Williams, I go
along with what you're saying so far but if that's true how come we're running a large balance of payments deficit?"

Do a web search for major foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities. As of June 2003, foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury
bonds totaled $1.347 trillion. Japan is the largest holder with $441 billion, followed by England with $122 billion and Mainland
China with $122 billion. Thus, dollars are coming back to America, in this case to help sponsor Congress's profligate spending.
Also, we mustn't forget that foreigners also use their dollars on Wall Street to purchase stocks, bonds, and other financial
instruments. All the nonsense we hear about balance of payments deficit ignores the fact that there are two types of accounts: a
goods and services account and a capital account. Any imbalance in the goods and services account is offset by the capital
account (stocks and bonds). The bottom line is that free trade, while it might mean painful adjustments for the few, benefits
immensely the many through cheaper prices and wider choice.

Walter E. Williams
c37-03
August 25, 2003