Essential Economics for Politicians

Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

You report that America’s “Goods deficit with China hit record $375.2 billion” (“U.S. Trade Deficit Grew to $566 Billion in 2017, Its Widest Mark in Nine Years,” Feb. 6). Unfortunately, this report is inadvertently misleading – and misleading in a way that fuels destructive protectionist sentiment.

First, in our world of nearly 200 countries, one country’s trade deficit with another country is as meaningless as is one individual’s trade deficit with another individual. For the same reason that absolutely no relevant information about my economic health is conveyed by knowledge of the fact that I have a large trade deficit with my plumber (who is one of many people with whom I economically interact), absolutely no relevant information about America’s economic health is conveyed by knowledge of the fact that America has a large trade deficit with China (which is one of many countries with which Americans economically interact).

Second, because 80 percent of the U.S. economy is service-based while no more than half of China’s economy is service-based, it’s unsurprising that we Americans buy more goods from the Chinese than than they buy from us. (Equally unsurprising, by the way, is the reality that the Chinese buy more services from us than we buy from them.) More fundamentally, because services are every bit as economically relevant as are goods, reporting on the U.S. “goods deficit with China” (or with the world, for that matter) makes no more sense than does reporting on, say, the U.S. “things-that-are blue deficit” with China. The dollar value of blue things that we Americans buy from the Chinese might well be greater than is the dollar value of blue things that the Chinese buy from us, but this factoid is obviously of zero relevance. Equally irrelevant – and for the same reason – is the factoid that the dollar value of goods that we buy from the Chinese is greater than is the dollar value of goods that the Chinese buy from us.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
 
By all objective measures, NAFTA is working well, for the U.S. economy and the U.S. automotive sector. In 2017, U.S.-based automakers produced 11.1 million cars and light trucks. That number has not declined since NAFTA was enacted in 1994, and is in fact above the average annual output of 10.9 million assemblies during the past 30 years. Real U.S. output of motor vehicles and parts, adjusted for inflation and quality, is up 85 percent since the passage of NAFTA, according the Federal Reserve Board.

Because of NAFTA, domestic U.S. automakers have been able to deploy their supply chain across North America, creating lower-value vehicles and parts in Mexico while concentrating higher-end production here in the United States. The result has been a U.S. auto sector that is able to deliver more affordable and higher quality cars and trucks to American families while competing more effectively in global export markets. In recent years, U.S. exports of motor vehicles have topped 2 million for the first time.
 
…. is from Thomas Sowell’s book Intellectuals and Society:

If, at a given time, three-quarters of the consumers prefer to buy the Acme brand of widgets to any other brand, then Acme Inc. will be said to ‘control’ three-quarters of the market, even though consumers control 100 percent of the market, since they can switch to another brand of widgets tomorrow if someone else comes up with a better widget, or stop buying widgets altogether if a new product comes along that makes widgets obsolete.

Another great example of Thomas Sowell’s masterful “idea density” — his ability to pack more insight and wisdom into a single sentence than what is usually contained in an entire paragraph or entire essay of the average writer.
 
A Protectionist is Someone Who…
by Don Boudreaux on February 6, 2018

… upon seeing the additional sales made by pharmaceutical companies during an especially bad flu season concludes that society is enriched by the flu.

… upon seeing the additional income earned by restaurant owners and workers if government imposes a punitive tax on the preparation of home-cooked meals concludes that society is enriched by punitively taxing the preparation of home-cooked meals.

… believes that the artificial creation of more work – that is, the artificial creation of more needs to be satisfied – enriches society.
As for #3, that’s the entire basis of the Capitalist system, obviously. You don’t like it? Is that why you work for the government?
 
Go back and read the whole thing this time.....#3 that is.
The creation of more needs, leading to more jobs fulfilling those needs (like building automobiles, for example), is a foundational element of market growth, which is a requirement for the capitalist system. What am I missing?
 
The creation of more needs, leading to more jobs fulfilling those needs (like building automobiles, for example), is a foundational element of market growth, which is a requirement for the capitalist system. What am I missing?
That's not what #3 is talking about. It's talking about creating artificial jobs for artificial needs. Having said that, the auto industry is a poor example of #3 because it is actually doing the opposite of #3. In the 1950s the average worker at General Motors (GM) could make 7 cars in a year, and now they make 28--that's an unbelievable transformation. It means that for the same amount of cars sold, now GM needs 70% fewer workers. That alone means that there are fewer and fewer jobs in this sector. In some sense, this sector becomes so productive and so successful at using the best possible machinery and robots that it needs fewer and fewer workers.--Enrico Moretti, The New Geography of Jobs
 
The Solar Panel Tariff Threatens Far More American Jobs than It Protects
by Barry Brownstein

“While there are fewer than 1,000 jobs in U.S. panel manufacturing, some 260,000 jobs rely on access to imported panels.”

Today those 260,000 jobs are at risk because of a ruling by President Trump. The president — to show he is serious about his “America First” trade policy —imposed steep new tariffs on imported solar panels from China and on washing machines from South Korea.

“Solar tariffs would be another destructive exercise that benefits a handful of Suniva and SolarWorld [panel manufactures] investors at the expense of everyone else — including the rest of the solar industry. This is protectionism at its worst.”
 
How Easy Money Is Rotting America from
the Inside-Out

by David Veksler

The same thing will happen to streets, bridges, and plumbing. This is one of the ways urban decay happens: easy money policies fund unsustainable urban infrastructure projects which make politicians look good, but end up crumbling a few years or decades later. The Flint water crisis happened in large part because the Federal government funded infrastructure projects that were not sustainable by the incomes of the people of Michigan.

Easy money from the Fed also rots the guts of American corporations. New money goes to the most politically-connected businesses first, and funds projects that would not be possible in a free market. Because private investors haven’t actually saved enough to see the projects through to completion, and consumers don’t value the product enough to cover production costs, the companies getting free money from the government either fail or receive endless bailouts. For example, easy money encouraged unsustainable commitments like high union wages and pensions, forcing US automakers to sell cars for prices that consumers could not pay given their actual savings rate. When sales dipped in 2009, the government was forced to bail out GM, Chrysler, and Ford in 2009.
 
How Easy Money Is Rotting America from
the Inside-Out

by David Veksler

The same thing will happen to streets, bridges, and plumbing. This is one of the ways urban decay happens: easy money policies fund unsustainable urban infrastructure projects which make politicians look good, but end up crumbling a few years or decades later. The Flint water crisis happened in large part because the Federal government funded infrastructure projects that were not sustainable by the incomes of the people of Michigan.

Easy money from the Fed also rots the guts of American corporations. New money goes to the most politically-connected businesses first, and funds projects that would not be possible in a free market. Because private investors haven’t actually saved enough to see the projects through to completion, and consumers don’t value the product enough to cover production costs, the companies getting free money from the government either fail or receive endless bailouts. For example, easy money encouraged unsustainable commitments like high union wages and pensions, forcing US automakers to sell cars for prices that consumers could not pay given their actual savings rate. When sales dipped in 2009, the government was forced to bail out GM, Chrysler, and Ford in 2009.
Huh? Ford didn’t get a buyout and this article makes no sense at all.
 
Huh? Ford didn’t get a buyout and this article makes no sense at all.
Lol! A buyout? Obama wanted more electric cars on the road and Ford was a vulnerable key player in achieving that goal through a very quiet bailout of Ford. Make sense now?
 
Lol! A buyout? Obama wanted more electric cars on the road and Ford was a vulnerable key player in achieving that goal through a very quiet bailout of Ford. Make sense now?
They didn’t take any TARP money and their credit line was part of a program put in place by the Bush administration. You poor thing.
 
As was the case with W, we learn that Republicans don't understand economics. I think too much money from daddy and banks, with both W and Trump.
 
Back
Top