Redstate

While there is some merit to your points and Blackhedd's (although his seem excessively sweeping and he doesn't address the consequences of such sweeping changes), you both largely miss the big picture (in my humble opinion). If the labor cost for apple pickers is indeed, as Blackhedd claims, 50 times higher in the U.S. than in China, it is mostly for one reason: there are plenty of desperately poor people there and the supply & demand equilibrium is such that employers can attract workers for low wages and workers will accept it. The changes you suggest and those that Blackhedd suggest, even if, just for the sake of argument, they are desirable, will not fundamentally change that basic reality.

With or without labor and environmental regulations, the U.S. cannot produce anything cheaper than China. Even if we import Mexican migrant workers to harvest crops, the Chinese will be able to do it much cheaper.

Does this mean that we end up importing everything from China? No, there has to be some sense of patriotism beyond price. We are a country, not just an economy. I am so sick of corporate neocons wanting to use the purchase price, as the total cost of a product. Every time a job or product is outsourced, it is going to cost our economy, or the taxpayer, more than any regulations.

We can get cheaper consumer goods. But, the savings will go to the welfare state. This is a faster road to socialism than economic protectionism, and will undermine national security.

and go back to a tariff system.

I am a capitalist and I believe in free trade. What is happening is neither.

I'd no more trust the WTO to dictate domestic policy than I'd trust the UN.

Run like Reagan!

1. There is no such thing as a free trade. This is just a myth.

2. China is not a capitalistic country. It is a mercantilist country.

3. What are our strengths that we can compete globally? Besides aerospace and defense, and agriculture, what do we do better and more efficiently? We just gave away electronics and computer technology.

5. How much have taxes been lowered and how much has the welfare state declined due to free trade and globalization?

Are you without words, or just answers to my points? You have the typical trite response that if I don't like selling off the country (one billion dollars in private wealth per day, according to Buffett), I must be a protectionist. I am not against free trade (but I don't think that Washington apple growers should have to compete with Chinese apple growers.).

All of the international trade agencies will have no effect on China. China is conducting "economic warfare," not free trade.

If cheap labor is the dominant economic factor, there is no such thing as competitive strengths among countries. Capital and technology can be sent anywhere.

Besides entering our agricultural (food) sector, the Chinese are going to try to get into our automobile market through Mexico. The little cars will be cheap because the parts will be shipped from China to Mexico. I hope that you are not living in Michigan.

Right now, some U.S. companies are insourcing engineers from India. They get around the work visa requirements by sending them back to India every three months and having their passports re-stamped. It is cheaper for these companies to pay these travel expenses than to hire a U.S. computer engineer. Is this the kind of free trade/globalism that you want? I hope you are not a computer engineer.

We're healthy, we're well-educated, we're well-adapted to technology (This is in part due to our having attracted the world's best, by the way). This makes us productive.

Our business climate has advantages. We respect property rights, we're relatively free of corruption, and we have relatively low barriers to entry in most markets. This makes us a great investment.

We probably have the absolute advantage in services. Yes, there are a lot of bone-headed penny pinchers who look to places like India to save on service costs, but those trade-offs have hurt many of them in the long run due to the inferior quality of service. You get what you pay for.

Those who want the best will always come to us for the best.

Run like Reagan!

Again, the "Reply to this" function is your friend. Use it. Although in this particular case, I don't have much interest in continuing much further.

As for Michigan, no I'm not in Michigan, but I don't think it would be wise (to say the least) for our government to force American consumers and taxpayers to prop up U.S. carmakers (with the possible -- POSSIBLE -- exception of a temporary solution to a temporary problem, should such a situation arise as PERHAPS was the case with Chrysler years ago). U.S. carmakers should get more competitive, scale back or get out of the game. Obviously there would be short-term pain to a small percentage of Americans (and possibly some cost to Americans as a whole in the worst case scenario if we have to cover pensions, etc.), but your idea of protectionism for the auto industry, apples, and probably everything else would create much bigger problems and have a much greater negative effect on the standard of living of most Americans.

Because I don't want the U.S. market flooded with Red Chinese cars made in Mexico, without high tariffs, I am a protectionist of the U.S. auto industry? I am hardly an apologist for Detroit. I drive a Toyota Tundra. You over-extrapulate. You make assumptions about my views before I divulge them.

You need to realize that it is not a case of being a complete free-trader or a protectionist. It is a matter of degree. Every country in the world has restrictions on free trade based upon their perceived vital interests.

Re: "Because I don't want the U.S. market flooded with Red Chinese cars made in Mexico, without high tariffs, I am a protectionist of the U.S. auto industry?"

Answer: Yes

Re: "You need to realize that it is not a case of being a complete free-trader or a protectionist. It is a matter of degree."

Answer: Obviously there could be pure or nearly pure cases at either extreme. But one needn't advocate a pure position to be worthy of either label. Your advocacy of high tariffs, in my opinion (and I think many would concur) makes you a protectionist. No, not a pure protectionist -- I'm not saying you would ban all imports of anything -- but far enough toward that end of the spectrum to fit that label.

Anyway, labels aren't what matters. What matters is that the policies you advocate would harm the nation (and the peoples of other nations).

1. We have advantages
2. We don't actually allow ourselves the use of them
3. If we don't start allowing ourselves to use our other countries will clean our clocks.

Between product liability law/ Environmental regulation/ and general litigious environment the country has become very unfriendly to manufacturers and any capital intensive enterprise.

Look at the "Bongs 4 Jesus" is there any doubt that was little more than a legal shakedown ?

Our environment is the healthiest in the world. Do we really need to keep making it harder to do things here ?

Can we for just a moment realize that because a man manufactures a product, it does not make them omniscient about its nature ? That there is some risk inherent in everything including just getting out of bed ?

Last but not least. When somebody does something really stupid can we admit its their fault and whatever comes there way is not need of restitution ?

An example in NYC on 5th avenue between 33rd and 34th street there is a big yellow stripe on the street indicating a bump. Why ? Because three stories above the bump is a law firm whose business was suing the city on behalf of anyone that tripped on the bump. They kept a sign by the bump.

Look as long as we make it more profitable to litigate than manufacture we will get more litigators than industrialists.

Personally law looks lower stress and has more job security than industrialism.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I'm amazed that people who don't trust the competency of government in virtually any area, what's to defer to it as a cure to our trade woes. Government will only make it worse.

Furthermore, these countries are not stealing jobs, but improving the quality of life of Americans by making products available that would cost so much more if made in this country. We have virtually full employment in this country.

I'm going to write about this at length in an up coming post, but I find this type of paranoia silly.

Trade deficits are not bad. In fact, in US history, we had our biggest surpluses during depressions and largest deficits during booms. Trade deficits are an indication of the extend of our buying power.

By the way, Houston is a great city. It is pro-family, pro-business, and is the red of the red as far as red state goes.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (Monday at 1 PM on CNN 650), Publisher of the HoustonBusinessReview.com and writes frequently in his www.BizPlusBlog.com.