Info 411?

First off, sorry for my absence.

Anyhow, trade I agree is a very difficult concept to grasp, and I feel we can all agree that the average American, self included, often struggle to completely grasp concepts that otherwise would indicate that in the long-run breaking down trade barriers are better for us all. Now the question then asked is who really does know? Is there a person with a monopoly on information? Are those in the “know” going unheralded by the public? Are they just too damn out of left field to be credible? Or are they hording the information for another end?

Whether it is a fact that those that conceal information have something to gain, or where there is money in being myopic, the reality of the matter is that sure quick buck beats the potential “long” buck. Thus, the cynical (yet at times admittedly entertaining) anchors of our favorite news sources, pound on free trade not because they find it their duty to tell us all the facts, but because there is interest in sensationalism. The infamous media maxim: if it bleeds it leads couldn’t be truer in this regard. Substitute the agonizing mother that lost her child in Iraq, with an angry, irritated, white middle-aged worker, who lost his job at the mill because of recent lay-offs. Substitute Iraqi insurgent for Indian, Chinese, Mexican or any other low-cost labor country, and you find your antagonist. It follows then that not only is our information is at best incomplete and myopic, but it serves to enrich the media as well as those that stand to gain from our ignorance.

All sensationalism aside, can we really blame ourselves? I mean what if my buddies just lost there jobs and now I fear losing mine? You’re telling me that in the long-run I’m better off? The point is that we are all motivated by our myopic self interest in one ay or another. And this is rational. I mean after all this is what feeds and houses our families. Tell a dairy farmer that free trade is better for him in the long-run, and then watch him wince as you tell him about the short run pains of lower prices. How do you expect him to pay certain necessities when he’s already living on a tight budget?

Now I understand this human factor, I don’t want you all calling me insensitive. But the harsh reality is that the world has changed and whether one likes it or not changes are a fundamental reality of what is to come. I believe that the problem lay in communication. Remember this: communication is not only about how one expresses themselves, but about how one’s expressions are received, interpreted and rationalized. One of the root problems affecting our understanding of trade issues is that the information fed to us, in addition to being myopic as I’ve already shown, is complicated and confusing.

To the average Joe it’s often another language altogether, and this is a damn dirty shame. Now who are you more prone to believe if your Joe: Lou Doubs with his charming smile, immaculately groomed hair, and custom tailored suit telling you that corporate America is evil because their outsourcing YOUR job to India? Or are you going to believe a Steve Forbes look-alike with his 2-inch rim glasses, professorial hair (you know, with the receding hair-line and bad comb-over look), and poorly tucked wrinkled shirt undiscernibly talking about trade-diffusion and current account deficits with Asia in his annoyingly nasal voice? I think it’s obvious, not only does Doubs have a wickedly handsome and disarming smile with a debonair demeanor to fit, but he’s easier to understand for most.

At one point in this rant I had a point. Oh yeah….

That is this: we won’t get anywhere near to getting people on board as long as our sources of information in myopic in nature pandering to our sensationalist appetites. Yet more importantly we’ll get nowhere fast unless we can effectively explain and diffuse information in a way people can truly grasp. It is in that that people will be able to challenge the merits of sensationalist shortsightedness.