He Asked

by Don Boudreaux on September 27, 2009

in Seen and Unseen, Trade

Here’s a letter that I sent to someone in Australia who insists on exporting to me — in America — his economic advice free of charge….

Mr. Mark ________
Proprietor, www.ssotu.com
Melbourne, Australia

Dear Mr. ________:

In response to my posts in support of free trade you keep e-mailing me, and posting in the comments section of my blog Market Correction, the following:

***

“American economics professors – as of tomorrow your lectures will be delivered via videoconferencing screens from Asia for only 10% of your salaries…

HOW WILL YOU FEED YOUR FAMILIES?”

*** [original emphasis]

I ignore the innumerable economic fallacies, and your ignorance of the data, that underlie your apparent assumption that imports from lower-wage countries impoverish citizens of higher-wage countries.  And I grant that economic change and stiffer competition (including from the opening up of foreign sources of supply) often lower the pay of some domestic workers.

So I take your question at face value.  My answer to it is this: I’ll find a way to feed my family.  I’ll get another job (or jobs).  I’ll cut back on less-essential expenses.  If I must, I’ll rely on my family and close friends as I hope they would rely on me if they were in dire straits.

But I will not, under any circumstances, use my economic misfortune as an excuse to violate the freedoms of others.  What right have I to demand that other people continue to pay me $X when they can get the same service elsewhere at a lower price, whether that lower price be $.99X or $.1X?  It is a perverted moral creed that justifies my threatening violence against persons who once paid me handsomely but who now choose to spend their earnings differently.  Such a moral creed is fundamentally inhuman, for not only does it make everyone a slave to everyone else, its widespread application would impoverish both our wallets and our character.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • ovarela3
    Let's say that someone invents a device such that it transfers a body of knowledge equivalent to that obtained from a normal college education in 30 seconds after it is placed over a student's head. While this would indeed be a misfortune for those of us who are professors and teachers, it would nevertheless be a great benefit to society, as innumerable educational resources would be used to do other things. What would the Mr. Mark _____ in Australia then do should such an invention be made? Would he stop the wheels of progress by prohibiting anyone from using such a device?
  • BoscoH
    The easier response is "bring it on". This flavor of protectionist isn't the least bit compassionate. He's just weak. He assumes that you're also weak and too stupid to realize your self interest.

    One thing I have learned in my 38 years here is to welcome competition. It makes you better. And despite all sorts of bluster, it only rarely shows up.
  • ---------------------5 months ago, I replied------------------------

    "Hey, why don't you get economics lectures piped into American universities via interactive videoconferencing links from Asia for only
    10% of the American salaries?
    Admittedly, American academics would have to retrain as Mickey Mouse inpersonators - but that's only a small price to pay for providing American students with lectures at the LOWEST GLOBAL COST"

    Don, what practical steps have you subsequently taken to ensure that American students can indeed access economics lectures at the LOWEST GLOBAL COST? Please, surprise me...

    Sincerely,
    Mark Gendala,
    Melbourne, Australia
    www.ssotu.com
    Author of "Re-industrialization of America" (R-O-A)
  • greego
    Hi Mark,

    Please stop making us look bad.

    Regards,
    Greg,
    Ex-pat Aussie
  • Hi - more power the Aussie expats... Greg, I'm delighted that you and rest of you happy campers have got your economics all figured-out. Obviously, your undoubted expertise on matters economical should now be put into practical use -

    May I suggest the next time you come across an American tyre-industry worker, express you dismay at President Obama's recent decision to protect his or hers $20 per hour job from $2 per hour Asian competition.

    Warning!!! Chances are that a kick up your backside may be so hard that you could end-up in Australia far earlier then you've ever planned.

    G'day
    Mark
  • MichaelSmith
    Mark Gendala, you've just publicly confessed to intellectual bankruptcy. You have no actual argument to offer in support of your position -- so you resort to the threat of physical violence from those who demand that I be forced to purchase the product they make instead of the one I prefer.

    This is very typical of statists of all sorts. Lacking any actual, valid arguments in support of their position, they can only resort to smears -- "You are racist! -- or character assassination -- "You are stupid!" -- or threats of physical violence -- or completely unsupported claims -- "Deregulation caused the recession!".
  • MWG
    "May I suggest the next time you come across an American tyre-industry worker, express you dismay at President Obama's recent decision to protect his or hers $20 per hour job from $2 per hour Asian competition."

    I thought Obama was using the tariff to "protect" American consumers from dangerous Chinese tires...
  • BoscoH
    Mark: Obama's tyre tariff might "save" 3500 jobs, so the chance of running into an affected tyre worker are pretty slim. And you're saying that these tyre workers are violent and have to be treated with economic kid gloves? By not protecting him from competition, I can expect an ass kicking, Yet, by making me pay more for tyres, he doesn't expect the same in return? Seems like a strange balance of violence to me, considering my preference affects 3500 people, while his affects 300 million. Crocodile Dundee and Steve Erwin both hate those odds.
  • Economiser
    Mark, I could also learn economics from encyclopedae and textbooks found at my local public library. Or nowadays I could surf the internet and have access to thousands upon thousands of free resources to learn economics. Both of those are available to me at a lower cost than your 10%-of-US-price Asian lecturers.

    Yet I still chose to pay American private education prices to have American academics to teach me at an American research university. So do millions of others. Why do you think that is?
  • MichaelSmith
    This is a variation of the utterly lame "chicken hawk" argument that the anti-war crowd trotted out during all the debate about the Iraq war. The argument was that unless you are actually willing to pick up a gun and march off into combat, none of your arguments in favor of the war are valid.

    In this variation, Gendala is implying that unless Don is doing actively trying to help students find a cheaper alternative than paying the tuition that makes Don's salary possible, then his pro-free trade arguments are not valid.

    This sort of thing doesn't deserve even the status of "fallacious argument" -- it isn't any sort of argument at all. It is, rather, a confession that one has no argument to offer.



  • BoscoH
    So Mark, to be clear, are you charging hypocrisy here? Because it sounds like you've just got an issue with Asians. Free trade is not about LOWEST GLOBAL COST. Lower global cost may be a long term benefit. Free trade is simply about freedom of people to choose from whom they wish to buy and to whom they wish to sell on their own whims. If, as a student, I prefer to have someone who shows up in the same classroom as I do over someone on YouTube, I should be free to express that desire and someone should be free to fulfill it if they see enough demand. Vice versa applies too. In short, free traders trust the collective and often contradictory wants of the people rather than the pontifications of self-anointed critics who have a problem with Asians.
  • MWG
    Dumb.
  • dsylexic
    explain to me why it is in don's interest to voluntarily diminish his chances of earning higher than asian professors?.

    don is only saying that if services trade reach a point where american students can access cheaper education online,he is not going to run to the govt like a stupid protectionist asking for favors .

    a bad businessman is one who points the low hanging fruits to the competition. an immoral one is where he insists everyone should only buy his costly fruits
  • matt
    Why does he have to take any steps--practical or otherwise--so that students can access lectures at the LOWEST GLOBAL COST? And what's up with THE CAPS?
  • danielkuehn
    At least he's focusing on dislocation problems, and not arguing that the economy as a whole would be better off with protection - which is better than a lot of people.
  • udctrox
    Nice one Don. If only more people thought like this...we need to get rid of protectionism altogether
  • dsylexic
    dont worry professors. i am from india and my countrymen proudly sneer at concepts like profit in the education sector. how are we to brainwash the masses unless we can cater to special interests (minimum of 50% caste based admission quotas). we would rather send abroad those want to pay high fees to american universities.our best bet is to subsidise at the cost of tax payer, highly talented undergraduates and export them
  • danielkuehn
    Despite the high fees, for the most part they're non-profit here too!!!
  • Curious
    I liked your original response on Market Correction best:

    "I'll ignore the river of factual errors, misleading definitions, and theoretical misunderstandings that saturate your 'analysis.' I content myself merely ask how you - who so ferociously oppose globalization and low-cost foreign suppliers - justify yourself exporting, to America, your (free!) advice and your website (also free!) from your home in Australia?"
  • I would ask him the question in reverse:

    If there are indeed professors in Asia who can teach with the same quality and rigor, why are non-American students flocking to the United States for their higher education?

    Why are they not traveling to Asia to study?


    The answer, of course, is that market has not yet emerged.

    Once it does -- the 90% of the money saved will be spent by those students on other productive pursuits in the United States, bolstering the economy, and providing an indication of new opportunities for Don, Russ, Walter and the gang to exploit with their talents.
  • muirgeo
    This country grew up on protectionism, tariffs and taxes. Now the beneficiaries do not want to pay taxes, tariffs or the price of good jobs.

    We are getting what we wish and paid for.
  • justpassingthrough2
    Given that you routinely present the members of this blog with 2+2=5, I'm convinced that you routinely take the opposing (and incorrect) position to allow everyone the opportunity to highlight your ignorance, arrogance, flawed analysis, and revisionist history.
  • danielkuehn
    Protecting the emergence of new industries is a whole different ball game from protecting the most advanced economy in the world. And even then, there's pretty general agreement that tariffs under the Democratic-Republicans got much higher than anything that could be justified by an infant industry approach.
  • Nathan
    Our country grew despite protectionism, tariffs, and taxes, not because of them. And the "beneficiaries" of protectionist policies are far outnumbered by those harmed by higher product prices. But that's okay. Just keep spewing your uninformed, economically ignorant nonsense, while also proudly casting your massively externality causing vote every November.
  • Gil
    How do you say that? Early America was resource-rich with a low population of pioneers - why would they need to trade with Britain for anything? They had a whole new country to themselves. Apparently, some Libertarians can't envision villages or tribes of people who are capable of feeding and clothing themselves.
  • vidyohs
    Were you just plain born stupid or have you spent years in developing your stupidity into this skill we see you display on a regular basis?

    Early America was indeed a resource rich area with a low population of pioneers, and oh yeah, all those few pioneers knew exactly where all those resources were, and had the tools and knowledge to just go right out to the right locations and just rip those resources out of the ground. What wasn't in the ground, of course that low population density was entirely adequate to harvest, gather, grow, shoot, whatever and transport to the right markets. Not only that but early America had exactly all the resources it needed to never have to trade with anyone.

    Gil, you're a total dipshit, and seemingly one who posts while stoned on a regular basis.

    Trade is based on two factors. One is want and the other is need.

    The early American spice and fabric industries were very competitive, eh Gil? No wait, America had no spice or fabric industries. Guess they needed to trade for it, huh?

    Well how about those tin mines, Gil? You know of tin, do you not? Important metal for use in many ways as is, and it is regularly used in alloys to create different metals of beauty and strength. Oh, crap Gil, that is right, America had no tin mines. Guess America needed to trade for it, huh?

    Add silver, gold, ivory, copper, to that list and it would still be just a partial list of things America needed to trade for.

    And, if a merchant in Boston wanted cotton, he could either have it shipped from England or from Georgia, either way it would take about the same time, just a matter of days difference.

    Reading the words that you and muirduck write, I am constantly amazed that you guys are functional beyond booger picking and drooling, only people being deliberately stupid can write such drivel.

    Last but not least my little Chihuahua, poor is a subjective concept. I have seen poor, walked in it, at one time lived a low level of America's version of poor, and saw men poor enough to pull knives and fight over my garbage. America has set the bar for poor so high that our poor are the wealthy in well over half the nations on Earth
    .br>
    Yes if interstellar trade develops in the future a particular planet could be called poor if cut off from that trade either through sanctions or through protectionist stupidity. The comparison between a planet in such a position and one participating fully in interstellar trade would be dramatic.

    If I were running a business in which I needed employees, I'd take Nathan in a heartbeat; but you couldn't give me any number of Gils, I'd have to spend too much time having to fix your screw-ups and in trying to educate you to the point of being semi-productive.
  • Gil
    And you figure yourself as some sort of Grizzly Adams depending on the day? Weren't you talking about making your bow from wood you chose and bothered to make it yourself? Gee, why didn't you go down the local sporting store and buy a bow instead engaging in protectionist claptrap?

    Still, your argument is little different from the population argument - what if the population fell from 6.7 billion to 3.2 billion in a year from some super-virus? Well if it culled only people from the poorest nations then not much at all as the remaining 3.2 billion are the most productive people in the world. But I'm sure you too would say something along the lines of "now that we have 6.7 billion I couldn't imagine the world population going down to 5 billion without causing great poverty.
  • matt
    Gil, I'm afraid you have fluid on the brain. I can't believe how utterly---- oh, nevermind.
  • vidyohs
    What if we lost the entire population of Australia because they all punctured their brains while picking boogers, I could guess that Gil would have been the first to go.

    What if, shit? Children engage in what if games.

    You dealt in fantasy crap above, I slapped you with reality. Go pick your nose.
  • Gil
    Basically you, vidyohs & others, can't imagine how people lived up until the last two centuries or so.
  • dsylexic
    obviously in the days of the so called pioneers, america was not an economic powerhouse.if it had remained an insular non trading country it would still have been poor.
  • Gil
    What do you base that daft crap on dsylexic? That only countries each have their own set of magical resourcse that only they can refine and produce? If there ever comes a time when people occupy other planets in other solar systems and there's interstellar trading then there will Libertarians arguing you can't limit trade to just one planet and when all trading was restricted to planet Earth everyone was poor.
  • dsylexic
    "That only countries each have their own set of magical resourcse that only they can refine and produce? "
    what a moronic conclusion do you even read what i wrote?
    .hongkong and singapore have no resources except human resources.they and the world are richer for their being part of free trade.
  • Chris
    Hey! I'm from Melbourne too! Sure you're going after the low hanging fruit here Don, but just think - if using underlines on your website count in a debate, he just whipped your arse.
    Anyway, here's a fantastic article supporting free trade published in this morning's Age, Melbourne's "paper of record". I recommend it. Below is my letter in response.

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-cu...

    Dear Sirs,
    Jacob Varghese's article was so good I even agreed with the typos! Parallel imports will cause (the quality) of local authors to "subside"!
  • vidyohs
    Holy sh.t, Chris! A sensible letter from an attorney, and on a subject where he comes down on the conservative rational side instead of the faniciful magical fairy wand side of things..... oh MY GOD! My Earth is still shaking.
  • Fortinbras
    This is incredible! A well-crafted response.
  • KMcC1
    I fear you're on to plums arguing with that guy.

    (does that idiom translate from Scotland to the rest of the world? Take it as my free export of the day.)
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: