“Picking Winners” by Making the Rest of Us Losers

by Don Boudreaux on February 9, 2010

in Man of System,Myths and Fallacies,Seen and Unseen,Subsidies,Trade

Below are two letters that I sent yesterday to the Wall Street Journal.  Both are in response to this essay whose author argues that America needs an “industrial policy.”  (This essay has many flaws beyond those that I highlight in my letters.)

John Hofmeister builds his case for a U.S. industrial policy on a foundation of falsehoods (“The U.S. Needs an Industrial Policy,” Feb. 8).

The most notable falsehood is Mr. Hofmeister’s assertion that American manufacturing is faltering.  In fact, America remains the world’s leading manufacturing country, one whose manufacturing output continues to increase.  For example, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the value of U.S. manufacturing output in 2007 was 8 percent higher than it was in 2000, 69 percent higher than it was in 1990, and 184 percent higher than it was in 1980.

And while it’s true that the Chinese will one day produce more manufacturing output than do Americans, that eventuality is hardly surprising given that China is home to one-sixth of the world’s population.  Moreover, the fact that manufacturing outputs in newly industrializing nations such as China are growing faster than American output no more means that American manufacturing is in poor health than does the fact that a two-year-old girl is growing faster than her ten-year-old brother mean that the brother is shrinking, is in poor health, or is in need of a ‘height’ policy.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

and

According to John Hofmeister, “Where to stimulate job creation should be as obvious as the cosmetic smile on an elected official’s face: manufacturing.  Go where we’ve been” (“The U.S. Needs an Industrial Policy,” Feb. 8).

If Mr. Hofmeister’s logic is correct, his recommendation is too modest, for there’s an industry that once employed a far larger percentage of Americans than were ever employed in manufacturing: agriculture.

So if it’s wise to “go where we’ve been,” Uncle Sam should implement policies that create lots of agricultural jobs.  He can do so by outlawing farm machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, and refrigeration, as well as all packing materials invented after, say, 1900.  Just imagine the millions of jobs restored to that glorious industry that once employed nearly nine in every ten workers!

Now if Mr. Hofmeister nevertheless insists that Uncle Sam create more jobs in manufacturing, similar steps will be necessary.  For example, all post-WWII – aw heck, all post-WWI – advances in automation and inventory control can be banned from use, along with all use of modern computer technologies.  The resulting plunge in productivity will mean that many more workers will be required to produce the same amount of output that a single worker produces today.  And with all those workers shifted back to manufacturing, America would have fewer service-sector workers – folks such as pharmaceutical researchers, highly specialized physicians, and software designers – dragging down measured average wages.

What a recipe for prosperity that is!

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • When government gets in the business of picking winners and losers, it’s important that we know how and why they pick them.
  • redst8r
    Professor Don,
    Your recent letter to the Wall Street Journal continues a theme of yours, to wit, that manufacturing in the United States is alive and well. To buttress this claim you provide statistical evidence showing that the dollar amount of manufactured products is high and rising. I will stipulate that your statistics are valid, that your math is accurate and that as far as it goes your conclusions valid.

    But from the hinterlands I see a wholly different picture. Out here in non-tenured land I see manufacturing employment as seriously ill and getting worse. The chart below is based on data obtained at www.bls.gov/cps. It shows the percentage of workers employed in manufacturing versus the total employed work force.

    [Sorry - I am unable to figure out how to insert a chart in a comment.
    The chart shows the decline in manufacturing employement as a percentage of total employment. The peak is during WWII (no surprise there) at around 25%-26%. It declines rather sharply into the 1950's where it tends to level out around 18% until 1969. At that time it again declines at a significant pace to the present (2009) level of about 6%. During the period 1969-present total labor force as a percentage of population also grows which may magnify the manufacturing decline.]
    [ see the chart at http://redst8r.wordpress.com/ ]

    As this chart demonstrates the manufacturing employed are dropping in a rather precipitous manner and have been doing so ever since the WWII peak. I concede that this is not all bad as many such workers were able to find alternative employment and the cost of manufactured goods was minimized. I do not believe this to be the case any longer.

    You provided a cute analogy to a 2 year old girl growing “faster” than her 10 year old brother. I suggest a more accurate analogy is the 2 year old growing “faster” not just while she is young but throughout her life. Surely at some point, when she is 12 for example, the now 20 year old brother who may now be smaller than his 12 year old sister should be examined for some pathological issue. That is the case today with manufacturing in the United States.

    I don’t really care that the dollar value of manufactured items has risen as you indicate. That only tells me that lower value manufacturing and the jobs that go with it has been transferred overseas. Please explain to me why that 2 year old girl – China – who should be eating more (relatively) than her older brother – America – is in fact not doing so? Shouldn’t the newly developing, rapidly growing, third world nation such as China be importing vast quantities of raw materials and finished goods to fill the growing demands of her population? And shouldn’t that be confirmed by a current account deficit as she buys more goods from overseas and consumes more internally? Yet that is clearly not the case. In fact the older brother, your analogy, is consuming more and growing less than his younger sister. Something is clearly wrong and yet you persist in following ideological paths rather than the evidence in front of you.
  • Seekingexports
    RE: Picking Winners. The U.S. has picked a loser in its trade relationship with China. The markets that exist in the U.S. are not developing in China or are receding. This is unfortunate but reality can suck.
  • johndewey
    gil: "On the other hand, if America tries to compete head-to-head with China to trying beat China at its own game then they will surely lose."

    First, I think the idea that America competes with China is not exactly correct. Multinational proft-seeking corporations do often compete with each other to win customers from all over the world. The ownerships of such corporations include numerous nationalities. Oftentimes, these corporations having diverse ownerships collaborate rather than compete.

    Perhaps you mean that American workers compete with Chinese workers in offerring their services to multinational corporations. Perhaps so. But Korean, Vietnamese, Mexican, Nicaraguan, Irish, Spanish, Pakistani, and Ghanan workers are also offerring their services to such employers. So perhaps you should expand your argument to include all global workers.

    If an individual worker must compete for jobs with the billions of other workers all over the globe, then perhaps he should do something to improve his chances. He could become highly skilled. He could choose a career in which he is not competing with overseas workers. I think he has many options.
  • Such excellent sarcasm, wasted on one so thoughtless.
  • Gil
    Maybe what he was saying is that America should be trying to make higher-order technology however technology is mired is a sort of plateau. TVs may get flatter and computers faster but they're both still TVs and computers (and a lot of these products comes from Asia anyway). Ideally, Americans should be making spaceships and exploring neighbouring star systems like the adventurers of ye olde times however the laws of physics currently forbid this. On the other hand, if America tries to compete head-to-head with China to trying beat China at its own game then they will surely lose.
  • Mike B
    I can see businessmen advocating bad public policy that benefits their firm. The latest loud mouth on this is the dude from Nucor (DiMicco?)and his "trade expert" Morici from Maryland. But this guy from Shell was really disjointed, ranting and illogical. Maybe he's just real old. I'm surprised the journal published such stuff.
  • johndewey
    John Hofmeister in 2008 Blasts Government for Restricting Free Market:

    "The consequences for federal restrictions on oil and gas exploration go beyond just higher gas prices, interfering with the basic free-market principle of allowing enterprise to meet demand by providing a supply, according to former Shell Oil CEO John Hofmeister."

    John Hofmeister, as Shell CEO, testifies in 2006 in favor of free market energy pricing:

    "Lack of access to energy resources and the hurricanes are the roots of the angst American consumers are experiencing. When supply is limited and demand is not reduced, the consequence is higher prices – in a free market that's how it works."

    Funny how a man can use the words "free markets" favorably when he runs an oil company and then change his tune once he retires to head a "non-profit" organization.
  • vidyohs
    "And while it’s true that the Chinese will one day produce more manufacturing output than do Americans, that eventuality is hardly surprising given that China is home to one-sixth of the world’s population."

    This may be projected or anticipated, but it is hardly a given by any means. There are a lot more factors than just population numbers that go into success.

    They are playing catch-up and they have a long way to go. Many a slip tween cup and lip, as they say.
  • johndewey
    For a former energy company president, John Hofmeister holds a surprising view of America's economic situation. But perhaps his ignorance of economics and industry shouldn't be so surprising.

    Hofmeister is trained in neither finance nor engineering, the typical academic backgrounds of energy company executives. Rather, he holds bachelors and masters degrees in political science.

    Hoifmeister didn't come up through the ranks of Shell's operating divisions, either upstream exploration or downstream refining. Rather, he made his way through Human Resources, first with Allied Signal and then with Shell.

    I realize that industry leaders can come from a wide variety of backgrounds. But when such an industry leader demonstrates such disregard for free markets and an ignorance of economics as Mr. Hofmeister has, it certainly makes one wonder whether his non-normal background (for a CEO) might be the cause for his uncommon views (for a CEO).
  • Economiser
    Great letters, Don. You could've written one on practically every sentence of that drivel.

    I can't believe I read the whole article. I felt like banging my head against the wall the entire time.

    I need some Bastiat to clear the senses:

    "When a product -- coal, iron, wheat, or textiles -- comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price." -- The Candlemakers' Petition

    Ahhh. That's better.
  • David
    Excellent letters. It's depressing when businessmen advocate nonsensical economic policy.
  • Man of system proposes industrial policy.
  • Great letters.

    "It is so easy to be wrong-and to persist in being-when the cost of being wrong is paid by others." -Thomas Sowell
  • neoaustrian
    Dr. Boudreaux,

    Thank you for writing those letters. I saw the essay and was about to write my own response when I realized - I can count on Cafe Hayek to take care of that for me.

    Btw, congratulations on your Saints.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: