A March 10th headline
in the Washington Post reads "U.S. to Toughen Its Stance On Trade.” Sounds great! Who wants
their government to be bullied by bad guys?
Trouble is,
"getting tough on trade" is a euphemism for government being bullied by bad guys. When government "toughens" its trade posture, it
always does so under pressure from organized producer groups -
producers too frightened, too greedy, and too unprincipled to compete against foreign
rivals – producers too namby-pamby to vie for consumer demand without
government making it tougher for consumers to get the most for
their money by buying imports.
Getting “tough” on trade means protecting domestic producers from having to compete head-on with foreign rivals.
"Toughening” trade protection is no
manly maneuver. Nor is it a policy likely to discipline domestic firms
into becoming as productive as possible. Being protected from
competition by a “tough” trade policy encourages domestic producers to
get weak. Why stay on top of your game if a “tough” protector will
cover you should you lose a step or two?
More importantly,
getting “tough” on trade directly assaults domestic consumers. A
“tough” U.S. trade policy prevents Americans from spending their money
as they choose. Americans are told by the government allegedly empowered to protect their rights and liberties that “You may not deal with
foreign suppliers as you wish; you must deal with them on terms
conditioned by Washington or not deal with them at all.”
In short, it’s impossible for any government to get “tough” on foreign traders without also getting tough on its own citizens.
Of
course, whenever Uncle Sam “toughens” his stance on trade, American
consumers aren’t alone in their suffering. Foreign rivals of the
protected firms are indeed among those who suffer. It’s this damage to
foreign firms that lends not only plausibility, but even glamour, to
the “get tough” rhetoric. But because foreign firms generally prosper
in America only by giving U.S. consumers the most value for the dollar,
it’s fair to ask those officials who call for “tougher” trade policies:
“What, exactly, do you have against American consumers? Why do you
want to force them to get less bang for their bucks? How will coddling
domestic producers behind a wall of protection make the U.S. economy
resilient and tough?”
For the U.S. "to toughen its stance on
trade" is for Uncle Sam – bullied by special interests – to thumb his
nose at ordinary Americans while barking at them "tough luck."
Share
{ 18 comments }
If this kind of crap is still going out when I get out of college in 2013, I'll just move out of the country.
Well this must be the next part of the congressional plan. Raise the national debt by nearly 2 trillion in 9 months, mint trillions more in the name of liquidity, and then close the borders to high quality low priced goods.
It sounds like the perfect receipt for the next Great Depression.
It sounds like the perfect receipt for the next Great Depression.
As if the socialists think that's a bad thing. They want to remake America into a Communist state.
"As if the socialists think that's a bad thing."
Clearly keeping the economy down was a ploy that benefited FDR; and BHO said he admires FDR.
I can't wait for the usual socialist anti-corporate crowd to respond to Prof. Boudreaux's argument as champions of American industry against the socialist subsidies of other nations.
Here is a poll question:
Is Barack Obama merely naive or he is plain old evil? Personally, I am leaning towards evil. From the Freudian slips to the populist rhetoric, I am just getting a sinister vibe. This, I am sure, will be a very popular attitude when I attend an elite university next year with all of my Marxist, "educated," peers.
In the same vein, and staying on protectionism even though it is national not international; here is a quote from our own Houston Comical business section. The writer is Loren Steffy, who comments predominately on business ethics, he is quoting Larry Kellner, CEO of Continental airlines.
"I had intended to ask Kellner if he thought the airline industry could ever achieve sustainable profitability, but his comment about regulation made the question moot."
"The industry, he said, needs new rules, ones that make the playing field equal for all carriers while still allowing competition to thrive."
Larry Kellner is a rare CEO, when Continental began to experience financial troubles, he went on a $1.00 a year salary until he could report that the company was back on sound financial footing. He takes no more than that for salary and I believe he also has rejected any idea of a bonus. He meets with the guys whose feet hit the tarmac, also the paper pushers, and as it is reported by Continental personnel Kellner is as near as possible to the kind of CEO I might consider working for.
With all that said, regarding his quoted comment, I have an offbeat take on the man and his proposals.
Disregarding his idealism regarding his salary and performance, I feel certain that there is one of two things going through his mind when he makes the statement about rules, regs, and equal playing field; One, is that he is scamming the game and knows full well his call for an equal playing field is a call for protectionism for his own business. Two, he is a fool who actually believes that the "equal playing field" of fantasy can be regulated and his company can better serve the client and it will be more profitable for Continental.
My gut feeling is that Kellner did not become CEO of Continental by being a fool, so I am forced to go with the understanding that he is looking to scam the system by supporting reregulation.
What I am saying in maybe a not clear way is that protectionism is not just a device to protect domestic business from foreign business, the way I see it the regulation that Kellner is calling for is also protectionism couched in language that the average American will accept and support. "Keep my business floating" through regulation, competition is killing me.
MHO
viking – let's not pretend all this is happening in a vacuum. 52% of the rabble aka "The People" want more socialism in America out of envy, hatred for anyone who does better then them.
Barack Obama is evil. He's knows exactly what he's doing. I'm not going to fall into the left-wingnut trap of ODS saying "he's stupid AND evil". That's just childish.
Gentlemen,
If you think that the problem is just Obama, think again: here is a video clip that on the face of it can inspire some of us, others it will turn off, but as I just told my son, there is no way I can spread it among my relatives, friends, and acquaintances. Watch it and see if you see the same frightening things in it that I do.
I give you Thomas Paine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA&feature=channel_page
So vidyohs' YouTube alter ego is Funbobbasso? I thought that'd be pretty much how you looked and sounded vidyohs.
Gilduck,
As usual you can't, or won't read, but oh yes you can be consistently stupid. There is just no need to analyze you any deeper than that, just plain willfully stupid.
>:)
Not to worry.
There will be a few bones thrown to the populist rabble, but both political parties are owned by Wall Street and both parties have their globalization marching orders.
Obama is willing to spend trillions to bail out Wall Street, so not to worry.
Other than rich white guys and college professors, everybody is expendable.
Jacob Oost
On the way out of the country do not let the screen door hit you on your ungrateful ass.
Unless you are going to Hillsdale College your education is heavily subsidized, directly and indirectly, by the government.
"your education is heavily subsidized, directly and indirectly, by the government."
Since we both bear the costs of government subsidies, and have no choice in the matter, gratitude is a less appropriate response than anger.
Let Jacob Oost and his parents reclaim the lost taxes with interest, and see if he still thinks he's at the winning end of that particular wealth redistribution. He's likely to find out that the only result is that they've been forced to prepay for the subsidized education he's getting (if he is even getting a subsided education).
You've neglected to also mention Grove City College.
To achieve job growth, a stronger economy, and balanced trade . . . the U.S.A. should limiting the growth-of-imports. This would strengthen domestic manufacturing and services and create prosperity and jobs here in America.
Clearly, we should not restrict exports. We want them to catch-up to imports. Over 90% of the potential world market is outside of the U.S.A. and we must serve that market.
As you know, imports were inhibited in years past by large oceans, high transportation costs, language differences, national customs, regulations, currency, wars, and direct tariffs (a most undesirable approach). Many of these inhibitions have declined over the years, leaving American enterprises and our economy vulnerable. In my view, we must replace those inhibitions by limiting the growth-of-imports (not exports) until trade balance is achieved.
Limited growth-of-imports could be achieved via simple, tax-accounting regulation, and an annual, government mandated, allowable, growth percentage. By limiting the deductibility of the cost-of-imported-goods that exceed the mandated, annual, allowable, growth percentage, businesses would be motivated to regulate themselves – to restrict their growth-of-imports, and to favor fully tax deductible domestic sources of goods and services. Small importers and outsourcers could be exempted from this regulation up to, say, one million dollars of imported purchases.
Here’s how this would work: Suppose the government mandated ½% allowable growth-of-imports for 2010. The cost of importing anything in excess of that amount would not be deductible for tax-calculation purposes. Companies would be allowed to sell their unused importation “rights” to other firms in a free market. Under this approach, importers and outsourcers, acting in their own enlightened self interest, would become highly selective in their importation and outsourcing strategies . . . and would source domestically whenever advantageous.
This proposal would be simple and easy to implement and administer via tax regulation. It would not require higher tariffs, or favoring one country over another, an important geopolitical advantage. Market forces would prevail within the restraint of the government mandated, annual, allowable, growth-of-imports percentage.
God Bless Americanism – Prosperity You Can Count On.
WILLIAM A. PAUWELS, SR.
“Identify and do the no-brainers . . . do them first . . . and do them now!"
To achieve job growth, a stronger economy, and balanced trade . . . the U.S.A. should limiting the growth-of-imports. This would strengthen domestic manufacturing and services and create prosperity and jobs here in America.
Do you have empirical evidence to support this strategy?
If you want to improve domestic prosperity, then you should support the end of the U.S. empire and stop the growth of entitlements.
{ 4 trackbacks }