We had our first external commenter today. The comment came on JobLess's emotionally charged post. I was accused of making "sexist comments." So, I did what I do best; I rationalized my actions.
There is a difference between sexism and sexuality. Sexism is denying opportunity specifically because of gender. The department head not promoting a professor only because she is female is sexist. Sexuality is the appreciation of the human body. Describing the lust that encompasses me when a woman fills out a pair of black stretchy pants just right is sexuality.
Some will say that my definition of sexism is too narrow. I invite their comments.
Since I am in no position to deny opportunity to anyone, I cannot be sexist. Since my heart beats, I cannot help but be sexual.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
CAFTA
Here I address why Democrats win points on CAFTA and my thoughts on Nico and Jason’s Exchange.
Sorry this is long, but I like to get everything out at once. CAFTA is a big deal!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s official: by two votes early this morning CAFTA passed. And it was no surprise really- I mean come on did we really think W would’ve made the trip to the Hill to personally lobby folks knowing he would be publicly humiliation if he failed? This was certainly calculated. And when Pelosi and Rangel say they are for free trade but are voting this down because of the “softness” of the standards it sets forth on labor and the environment, do we really believe them? Was NAFTA much different? And they voted for that one just fine.
This was political alright. It was the democrats saying “look at us! We are the poor, neglected, oppressed, abused, minority trying our best to stand up to the evil elephantine political machine.” Case and point: the arduous yet humorous debate on extending debate on the debate! Don’t get me wrong there were more than one or two republicans (especially in the sugar producing south) that had to swallow a jagged little political pill and take the party vote, and God knows if W would have lost this his delegation to the Hong Kong Ministerial would have lost all semblance of credibility. This is Hollywood for the ugly to be sure, and the Democrats played the cards the best they could have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now in regards to the comments about the poor being worse off with trade- I would like to preface by saying that I am a free trader, but that I do come from a developing country.
Economic THEORY, and I highlight theory here, suggests that in the short run trade can be very painful especially for developing nations with transitioning market and governmental institutions. It follows that producers with economies of scales and better efficiency ought to produce certain goods (competitive and absolute advantages sound familiar?). The painful part, as was the case with NAFTA, was that say corn producers in the US- with all there sophisticated and efficient capital- could outperform inefficient grower in Mexico that relied heavily on labor instead of this mechanized capital. This was (and is) in the short-run more expensive for Mexico considering the cost of competitive capital (often having to be bought from the US itself- but for that refer to dependency theory…).
Those firms that modernize survive (but at huge financial cost) and those that try to ride it out lose. Still the big losers are rural workers that go jobless and whom subsequently resort to migration, first to the urban centers (this is in part why Mexico City is so damn huge) and then fleeing the saturated labor market often come to the US. Hence I scoff when the republicans suggest that over night this is going to “solve” the immigration problem. Theory suggests the opposite.
The big problem here is, and I think it is an underlying point in Nico’s argument, is that there is a huge institutional learning curve for governments in developing countries vis-à-vis the US. Even assuming that the economic playing fields were equal between the US and the CAFTA nations (which we know they aren’t), how can small and medium businesses in these nations compete with the US firms with years of experience in knowing how to trade when there government hasn’t even established the protocol on how to get say a trading permit or shipping license to the US? The difference is that the US already has these simple institutional mechanisms in place from years of experience while for the most part, the CAFTA nations have to invent them as they go.
But I maintain that trade is NOT an evil. I can definitely see the long-run economic benefits to it. Again theory argues that living standards will rise in developing nations through their entrenchment in markets where they own the competitive advantage, and that consequently the propensity to migrate will become less. Questions obviously still loom such as can developing nations even carve out a niche competing with such diverse and experimented sector in the US market? What happens to labor surpluses as they make a move to mechanization? Will developing nation’s competitive advantage only be in labor? If so, how will their labor compete with other sources of labor from other nations the US trades with (ie CHINA!!)?
Nevertheless there is more than the economics of it. Here I am a strong believer that wealth creation is the key to institutional and political change. I believe that you can’t have good (or legit) democracy without economic growth. India for example has struggled economically since independence (until recently) because it focused too much on democratic development and not enough on economic growth—this led to a very politically unstable environment in the 1970s especially.
Democracy is a great thing, but the only way it will work is by creating interests. And while the socio-political interests that have dominated these areas are important, they also tend to be short lived (ie the Zapatistas) and often can’t sustain and routinize democracy. I assure that the pocketbook however not only creates interests, but it creates sustained interests (in order to protect it of course). I think Mr. Fox owes a bit of his 2000 success to the power the growing Mexican business interest.
The point of this whole rant is that free trade obviously has short term growing pains. Like the Mexicans, the CAFTA growers, producers, workers will experience these pains unfortunately. But I feel that in the end, not only will net wealth be created for the CAFTA nations, but their democracies will be stronger for it too.
Sorry this is long, but I like to get everything out at once. CAFTA is a big deal!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s official: by two votes early this morning CAFTA passed. And it was no surprise really- I mean come on did we really think W would’ve made the trip to the Hill to personally lobby folks knowing he would be publicly humiliation if he failed? This was certainly calculated. And when Pelosi and Rangel say they are for free trade but are voting this down because of the “softness” of the standards it sets forth on labor and the environment, do we really believe them? Was NAFTA much different? And they voted for that one just fine.
This was political alright. It was the democrats saying “look at us! We are the poor, neglected, oppressed, abused, minority trying our best to stand up to the evil elephantine political machine.” Case and point: the arduous yet humorous debate on extending debate on the debate! Don’t get me wrong there were more than one or two republicans (especially in the sugar producing south) that had to swallow a jagged little political pill and take the party vote, and God knows if W would have lost this his delegation to the Hong Kong Ministerial would have lost all semblance of credibility. This is Hollywood for the ugly to be sure, and the Democrats played the cards the best they could have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now in regards to the comments about the poor being worse off with trade- I would like to preface by saying that I am a free trader, but that I do come from a developing country.
Economic THEORY, and I highlight theory here, suggests that in the short run trade can be very painful especially for developing nations with transitioning market and governmental institutions. It follows that producers with economies of scales and better efficiency ought to produce certain goods (competitive and absolute advantages sound familiar?). The painful part, as was the case with NAFTA, was that say corn producers in the US- with all there sophisticated and efficient capital- could outperform inefficient grower in Mexico that relied heavily on labor instead of this mechanized capital. This was (and is) in the short-run more expensive for Mexico considering the cost of competitive capital (often having to be bought from the US itself- but for that refer to dependency theory…).
Those firms that modernize survive (but at huge financial cost) and those that try to ride it out lose. Still the big losers are rural workers that go jobless and whom subsequently resort to migration, first to the urban centers (this is in part why Mexico City is so damn huge) and then fleeing the saturated labor market often come to the US. Hence I scoff when the republicans suggest that over night this is going to “solve” the immigration problem. Theory suggests the opposite.
The big problem here is, and I think it is an underlying point in Nico’s argument, is that there is a huge institutional learning curve for governments in developing countries vis-à-vis the US. Even assuming that the economic playing fields were equal between the US and the CAFTA nations (which we know they aren’t), how can small and medium businesses in these nations compete with the US firms with years of experience in knowing how to trade when there government hasn’t even established the protocol on how to get say a trading permit or shipping license to the US? The difference is that the US already has these simple institutional mechanisms in place from years of experience while for the most part, the CAFTA nations have to invent them as they go.
But I maintain that trade is NOT an evil. I can definitely see the long-run economic benefits to it. Again theory argues that living standards will rise in developing nations through their entrenchment in markets where they own the competitive advantage, and that consequently the propensity to migrate will become less. Questions obviously still loom such as can developing nations even carve out a niche competing with such diverse and experimented sector in the US market? What happens to labor surpluses as they make a move to mechanization? Will developing nation’s competitive advantage only be in labor? If so, how will their labor compete with other sources of labor from other nations the US trades with (ie CHINA!!)?
Nevertheless there is more than the economics of it. Here I am a strong believer that wealth creation is the key to institutional and political change. I believe that you can’t have good (or legit) democracy without economic growth. India for example has struggled economically since independence (until recently) because it focused too much on democratic development and not enough on economic growth—this led to a very politically unstable environment in the 1970s especially.
Democracy is a great thing, but the only way it will work is by creating interests. And while the socio-political interests that have dominated these areas are important, they also tend to be short lived (ie the Zapatistas) and often can’t sustain and routinize democracy. I assure that the pocketbook however not only creates interests, but it creates sustained interests (in order to protect it of course). I think Mr. Fox owes a bit of his 2000 success to the power the growing Mexican business interest.
The point of this whole rant is that free trade obviously has short term growing pains. Like the Mexicans, the CAFTA growers, producers, workers will experience these pains unfortunately. But I feel that in the end, not only will net wealth be created for the CAFTA nations, but their democracies will be stronger for it too.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Mr. Selig, What Exactly Is Social Responsibility?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2117962
"The commissioner, who heard the appeal by the Texas Rangers pitcher last Friday, said the suspension would begin with Wednesday night's game at Baltimore. Under baseball's rules, Selig decided the original penalty and also ruled on the appeal.
"Kenny Rogers' behavior towards the two cameramen who were present at the ballpark and doing their job on June 29th, was wholly unacceptable," Selig said in a statement. "I have always placed a special emphasis on the social responsibility that each of us has in Major League Baseball given its proper place in American history and culture as a social institution. The media is entitled to perform its important role without fear of physical intimidation or contact from our players or other participants. While I listened carefully to Kenny Rogers' sincere explanation last week, I heard nothing that would warrant either eliminating or reducing the discipline imposed.""
Where was Selig's sense of social responsibility when he owned the Brewers? Why don't we take away teams from owners whom refuse to try to win? Is it socially responsible to give one man the power to both impose suspension and hear the appeal? Does Selig, himself, get to define social responsibility?
More evidence that authoritarian fascism is the dominant political philosophy in professional sports.
"The commissioner, who heard the appeal by the Texas Rangers pitcher last Friday, said the suspension would begin with Wednesday night's game at Baltimore. Under baseball's rules, Selig decided the original penalty and also ruled on the appeal.
"Kenny Rogers' behavior towards the two cameramen who were present at the ballpark and doing their job on June 29th, was wholly unacceptable," Selig said in a statement. "I have always placed a special emphasis on the social responsibility that each of us has in Major League Baseball given its proper place in American history and culture as a social institution. The media is entitled to perform its important role without fear of physical intimidation or contact from our players or other participants. While I listened carefully to Kenny Rogers' sincere explanation last week, I heard nothing that would warrant either eliminating or reducing the discipline imposed.""
Where was Selig's sense of social responsibility when he owned the Brewers? Why don't we take away teams from owners whom refuse to try to win? Is it socially responsible to give one man the power to both impose suspension and hear the appeal? Does Selig, himself, get to define social responsibility?
More evidence that authoritarian fascism is the dominant political philosophy in professional sports.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
"For Everything the North Gives It Exacts a Price In Return"*
I have never been to a Central American country. I stayed three weeks in the Philippines, but I willingly admit that I do not know poverty. (It is sad that US poverty experts grew up in Greenwich, CT. I do not think that time served in the Peace Corps qualifies you as a poverty expert.) Therefore, I do not understand the opinions or the situations of the poor in Central America. I am an arrogant US citizen, and I support any steps that make trade freer.
My question is how can CAFTA hurt the average person? It might do nothing for the average person in Central America, but it cannot make them worse off than they are currently. Trade must be mutually beneficial to occur. Central Americans will not sell anything to the US without getting something more valuable in return and vice versa.
Before Central American farmers are driven off their farms by US farmers, Central America has to give something in return for US food. There are no free lunches. What Central America sends to the US must be less valuable to Central America than the imported US food. There must be a net benefit to Central America, and the average Central American is better off after trade. There is a bigger pie to split amongst the same number of people.
But, Nicolasas's argument is that the median Central American might be worse off than he or she was before CAFTA. Positive economists whom are always looking for work will say this question is empirical. There have been studies on the issue, but I doubt if they prove anything.
My opinion is that that everyone will be better off or at least not worse off with CAFTA. Again my US arrogance comes through because I do not think that distributional asymmetries matter. Wealth breeds opportunity for both those with low and high initial endowments. Of course, there are potential political problems, but greater wealth makes correcting political problems both feasible and profitable. A country without money cannot build schools. Wealth must come first.
The continuous value theorem roughly states that to get to point C from A you have to go through B (all values between A and C). CAFTA is not perfect. It is a political instrument with political problems, but it is a step in the right direction for Central America.
* Bruce Springsteen
My question is how can CAFTA hurt the average person? It might do nothing for the average person in Central America, but it cannot make them worse off than they are currently. Trade must be mutually beneficial to occur. Central Americans will not sell anything to the US without getting something more valuable in return and vice versa.
Before Central American farmers are driven off their farms by US farmers, Central America has to give something in return for US food. There are no free lunches. What Central America sends to the US must be less valuable to Central America than the imported US food. There must be a net benefit to Central America, and the average Central American is better off after trade. There is a bigger pie to split amongst the same number of people.
But, Nicolasas's argument is that the median Central American might be worse off than he or she was before CAFTA. Positive economists whom are always looking for work will say this question is empirical. There have been studies on the issue, but I doubt if they prove anything.
My opinion is that that everyone will be better off or at least not worse off with CAFTA. Again my US arrogance comes through because I do not think that distributional asymmetries matter. Wealth breeds opportunity for both those with low and high initial endowments. Of course, there are potential political problems, but greater wealth makes correcting political problems both feasible and profitable. A country without money cannot build schools. Wealth must come first.
The continuous value theorem roughly states that to get to point C from A you have to go through B (all values between A and C). CAFTA is not perfect. It is a political instrument with political problems, but it is a step in the right direction for Central America.
* Bruce Springsteen
Quote of the Day
"Of course, man cannot survive the work week on mental reverie alone. He needs external stimulation -- otherwise, both Page 2 and Internet porn would cease to exist."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/050726
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/050726
A powerful vote.. made by only a few
It is very interesting to read the opinions of many about the crucial vote on CAFTA coming up. As I read the news and editorials, I am sure like many of you (I think) that in the long run this agreement would be good for the biggest economy of the world. However, it is very important to understand both sides and that is why I keep telling people to think about the smaller countries. Would the people really benefit? The inequalities in this region are huge... These negotiations are made by those who "understand" economics or have a special interest. Not by the guy selling fruits in market, or by the guy with the small shoes store in the "centro" or downtown in Tegucigalpa. What I am trying to say is that the "average" people is not going to benefit like people think. Education and Health are issues that negotiator need to put before the interest of private companies or trade. Without these issues resolve... they wont be competing to buy our goods, but making them! Free trade would never work as it should. It is time that we consider the bigger issue or that we understand a little more than just profit, economics, or market access.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
A Comment on Writing
JobLess and I have privately discussed writing. This post comments on one of the mistakes I made in my previous post.
Instead of distant athletic events, I should have used coffee shops or bookstores. I knew what I meant, but coffee shops and bookstores would make better sense to most people. When writing, one cannot forget his audience. Using distant athletic events also makes the post specific and could offend certain people that I prefer not to offend. (I will not comment on the post's horrendous flow.)
The post's point was that somebody has to decide what choices to eliminate and that there will always be disagreement and unforeseen consequences with what choice to disallow.
Instead of distant athletic events, I should have used coffee shops or bookstores. I knew what I meant, but coffee shops and bookstores would make better sense to most people. When writing, one cannot forget his audience. Using distant athletic events also makes the post specific and could offend certain people that I prefer not to offend. (I will not comment on the post's horrendous flow.)
The post's point was that somebody has to decide what choices to eliminate and that there will always be disagreement and unforeseen consequences with what choice to disallow.
Choice
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/opinion/24sun3.html?th&emc=th
I have read a few articles on choice lately. Many condemn choice as something that complicates life and causes anxiety. Many take a Marxist-Veblenesque approach and say that an individual really does not decide on anything; their surroundings decide for them. I had a colleague recently say that obesity was not a choice, "nobody would want to be fat."
Surroundings affect choice, but surroundings cannot decide. I enjoy eating partly because my parents emphasized putting food on the table. But, I have known about quality nutrition for the last decade of my life and have decided to eat poorly. Do I want to be fat? No. Do I want government to eliminate greasy cheese burgers? Hell no. Obviously, there have been numerous times when I have preferred greasy cheese burgers to being skinny. I have recognized the consequences of my decisions.
I will never forget the guy who valued microbreweries but disliked Wal-Mart. (I cannot imagine microbrewery proliferation without Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart made microbrewery distribution possible.
They made retailers cut their margins while also creating a consumer-first attitude. The guy could not see that if government limited Wal-Mart it would be limiting his choice of beers also.)
The retro-hippies do not realize that they make choices everyday that I do not like. I cannot appreciate their lackadaisical participation in distant athletic events. It is simply a vacation, but they need an event to travel to a different place and get drunk with their friends. Go and party, but do not cheapen the event by half-heartedly competing. (Of course, I know there are unforeseen consequences to government eliminating these actions that would adversely affect me.)
The previous two paragraphs raise the question, which choices do we eliminate? In my perfect world, athletic events would be sacred. In the other guy's perfect world, there would be no Wal-Marts. Who decides?
I pick the market.
(There is an interesting discussion on infromation here, but I have got to eat something.)
I have read a few articles on choice lately. Many condemn choice as something that complicates life and causes anxiety. Many take a Marxist-Veblenesque approach and say that an individual really does not decide on anything; their surroundings decide for them. I had a colleague recently say that obesity was not a choice, "nobody would want to be fat."
Surroundings affect choice, but surroundings cannot decide. I enjoy eating partly because my parents emphasized putting food on the table. But, I have known about quality nutrition for the last decade of my life and have decided to eat poorly. Do I want to be fat? No. Do I want government to eliminate greasy cheese burgers? Hell no. Obviously, there have been numerous times when I have preferred greasy cheese burgers to being skinny. I have recognized the consequences of my decisions.
I will never forget the guy who valued microbreweries but disliked Wal-Mart. (I cannot imagine microbrewery proliferation without Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart made microbrewery distribution possible.
They made retailers cut their margins while also creating a consumer-first attitude. The guy could not see that if government limited Wal-Mart it would be limiting his choice of beers also.)
The retro-hippies do not realize that they make choices everyday that I do not like. I cannot appreciate their lackadaisical participation in distant athletic events. It is simply a vacation, but they need an event to travel to a different place and get drunk with their friends. Go and party, but do not cheapen the event by half-heartedly competing. (Of course, I know there are unforeseen consequences to government eliminating these actions that would adversely affect me.)
The previous two paragraphs raise the question, which choices do we eliminate? In my perfect world, athletic events would be sacred. In the other guy's perfect world, there would be no Wal-Marts. Who decides?
I pick the market.
(There is an interesting discussion on infromation here, but I have got to eat something.)
Friday, July 22, 2005
The Boss and Bono Revisited
It is funny how posts mesh together. My whining personal post about my intellectual incubators letting me down fits well with Carlos's post. (I invite everyone to write a personal post every now and then. It is therapeutic.)
Bono and Springsteen think that they are helping the world with their pleas for greater aide to corrupt Africa, the sanctioning of violent backward autarkists, and all of their pseudo-environmental causes. (I just saw where Bono's wife was protesting a nuclear power plant.) Even though they completely miss the perverse repercussions of their proposals, they engage many followers. As they did with me, they spawn intellectual activity. Sadly, many followers never read Hayek, Rand, Bastiat, Russ Roberts or Don Boudreaux, and they think Bono's and Springsteen's teachings are the Truth.
The real sad part is that these people perceive themselves as altruistic. They think they are "saving the world from humans." In a way, I respect the people whom disagree with trade because of narrow self-interest much more than those whom reject it out of altruistic reasons.
Rand's Objectivists have called for a new intellectual movement in which the rationality of the Enlightenment trumps Romanticism. They are correct; the world will never reach its potential and trade freely without finding intellectual leaders other than Bruce and Bono.
Disclaimer
This post was written while listening to "Born in the USA" and U2's "Where Did It All Go Wrong?" and "Please."
Link
Don Boudreaux's and Russ Roberts's Cafe Hayek
http://www.cafehayek.com/
Bono and Springsteen think that they are helping the world with their pleas for greater aide to corrupt Africa, the sanctioning of violent backward autarkists, and all of their pseudo-environmental causes. (I just saw where Bono's wife was protesting a nuclear power plant.) Even though they completely miss the perverse repercussions of their proposals, they engage many followers. As they did with me, they spawn intellectual activity. Sadly, many followers never read Hayek, Rand, Bastiat, Russ Roberts or Don Boudreaux, and they think Bono's and Springsteen's teachings are the Truth.
The real sad part is that these people perceive themselves as altruistic. They think they are "saving the world from humans." In a way, I respect the people whom disagree with trade because of narrow self-interest much more than those whom reject it out of altruistic reasons.
Rand's Objectivists have called for a new intellectual movement in which the rationality of the Enlightenment trumps Romanticism. They are correct; the world will never reach its potential and trade freely without finding intellectual leaders other than Bruce and Bono.
Disclaimer
This post was written while listening to "Born in the USA" and U2's "Where Did It All Go Wrong?" and "Please."
Link
Don Boudreaux's and Russ Roberts's Cafe Hayek
http://www.cafehayek.com/
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Intellectual Development
All of the people who first made me think like my father, Bono, Bruce Springsteen, Paul Krugman (there is probably more that I am forgetting), I disagree with now.
The individuals who made me want to learn, who spawned my intellectual curiosity, who made me aware, have aided the problems that I want to fix so badly.
Don't get me wrong; I still love my father, listen to U2 and the Boss, and read Krugman's articles, but their actions, their Romanticism, and their lack of foresight disturbs me. I appreciate what they have done, but I want to point out the error of their ways.
This weak post needs work, but it is late.
The individuals who made me want to learn, who spawned my intellectual curiosity, who made me aware, have aided the problems that I want to fix so badly.
Don't get me wrong; I still love my father, listen to U2 and the Boss, and read Krugman's articles, but their actions, their Romanticism, and their lack of foresight disturbs me. I appreciate what they have done, but I want to point out the error of their ways.
This weak post needs work, but it is late.
Career Advice For Job Less And The Question Of The Day
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lovinger/050719
If you stay away from casinos, online tournaments and you are an average player, then your expected value is zero. It seems like an adequate career.
Would you rather win the Tour de France seven consecutive times or have Sheryl Crow for a girlfriend?
If you won the Tour seven times, I think you could find a nice-looking French or Italian girl (or a lot of nice-looking French and Italian girls). But, could they sing you to sleep every night? It is a tough decision that I would like to make.
If you stay away from casinos, online tournaments and you are an average player, then your expected value is zero. It seems like an adequate career.
Would you rather win the Tour de France seven consecutive times or have Sheryl Crow for a girlfriend?
If you won the Tour seven times, I think you could find a nice-looking French or Italian girl (or a lot of nice-looking French and Italian girls). But, could they sing you to sleep every night? It is a tough decision that I would like to make.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Why are going to grad school?
You know what makes me so sick? You know what makes me so angry I just to wanna spit in a 300 lb. gorilla's face? When I asked Shelly (upcoming senior at K-State majoring in both Econ and Ag Econ) why she was going to grad school, she responded with, "...because I don't want a job right now." How fucking stupid is that? How irresponsible? How juvenile?
Graduate school is a really big deal! Becca (upcoming senior at New Mexico State majoring in Ag Econ) said, "Shelly is going because she can". I don't know about you, but that pisses me the fuck off. You have hard working, smart, intelligent undergrads fighting for assistantships and grant funds and here comes some lazy competitor that could snatch all of that away from those that have a reason or a purpose for learning more at grad school.
Granted people do things all the time for the same reason, "because they can". I've even said it myself and I'm quite disgusted with myself too. What happened to 'I want to be a professor or scientist or foreign service officer'? The want in people feeds drive and determination to succeed. Slaves brought forth on this continent do not have this drive, so they become lazy. People come to America because they want something. Shelly should make every immigrant angry at America's youth. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
Graduate school is a really big deal! Becca (upcoming senior at New Mexico State majoring in Ag Econ) said, "Shelly is going because she can". I don't know about you, but that pisses me the fuck off. You have hard working, smart, intelligent undergrads fighting for assistantships and grant funds and here comes some lazy competitor that could snatch all of that away from those that have a reason or a purpose for learning more at grad school.
Granted people do things all the time for the same reason, "because they can". I've even said it myself and I'm quite disgusted with myself too. What happened to 'I want to be a professor or scientist or foreign service officer'? The want in people feeds drive and determination to succeed. Slaves brought forth on this continent do not have this drive, so they become lazy. People come to America because they want something. Shelly should make every immigrant angry at America's youth. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
Another Question and Leadbelly's "The Bourgeois Blues"
How has Japan's, Germany's, and Western Europes's economies performed over the past decade?
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=grant/050715
This links to an interesting article by Alan Grant on what "keeping it real" means.
We all have diverse backgrounds. How much do we have to compromise to reach our goals?
I always thought that "I had to become what I hate" to succeed. Growing up I disliked 'preppies' and their 'yuppie' parents. Their privilege caused me great disdain. I certainly had it plenty good compared to the majority of the world, but I did not want to agree with their definitions of success. Now, I am a yuppie with yuppie colleagues who participates in yuppie institutions (like blogging).
A colleague chastised my logic on this issue. She claimed that I was just making excuses for my failures. She said every decision is personal, and in the end, the individual has to take responsibility for that choice and not blame society. In other words, I like blogging therefore I do it. Really, this conclusion is reached by Grant also. They are both are correct, but it is an interesting discussion.
In fairness to myself, I do not think that I was blaming anyone. I think that I was just searching for the Truth.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=grant/050715
This links to an interesting article by Alan Grant on what "keeping it real" means.
We all have diverse backgrounds. How much do we have to compromise to reach our goals?
I always thought that "I had to become what I hate" to succeed. Growing up I disliked 'preppies' and their 'yuppie' parents. Their privilege caused me great disdain. I certainly had it plenty good compared to the majority of the world, but I did not want to agree with their definitions of success. Now, I am a yuppie with yuppie colleagues who participates in yuppie institutions (like blogging).
A colleague chastised my logic on this issue. She claimed that I was just making excuses for my failures. She said every decision is personal, and in the end, the individual has to take responsibility for that choice and not blame society. In other words, I like blogging therefore I do it. Really, this conclusion is reached by Grant also. They are both are correct, but it is an interesting discussion.
In fairness to myself, I do not think that I was blaming anyone. I think that I was just searching for the Truth.
Questions For Mr. Greider
1. Can every country run a trade surplus?
2. Is the US really comparable to the Soviet Union?
3. Where do the profits of American corporations go?
4. What happens when American 'working class' wages decrease?
5. Why has the world lent the US so much money?
6. Does the world expect to be paid back?
7. Are you, Mr. Greider, smarter than the rest of the world?
8. Should we appoint you, Mr. Greider, Emperor of the United States?
2. Is the US really comparable to the Soviet Union?
3. Where do the profits of American corporations go?
4. What happens when American 'working class' wages decrease?
5. Why has the world lent the US so much money?
6. Does the world expect to be paid back?
7. Are you, Mr. Greider, smarter than the rest of the world?
8. Should we appoint you, Mr. Greider, Emperor of the United States?
Since Everyone Else Is Jumping, Why Don't We?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18greider.html?th&emc=th&oref=login
Another sickening display of published ignorance, I hope to comment later.
Another sickening display of published ignorance, I hope to comment later.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Observations
I hate getting a haircut. I cannot think of any worse waste of time that costs you money.
I was talking to some colleagues today. One said that his brother was going to work for a company located in Ohio that was doubling its workforce (from 100 employees to 200 employees). I made a lame joke about how I thought all of the US's jobs were going to India. One colleague saw the humor, while the other did not. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that economists are part of the problem and not the solution. You should have to understand and appreciate the lessons that economics teaches before they give you a degree in the subject.
I have been observing this weight-room girl for the last four months. (A weight-room girl just scans cards and prays that nobody hurts themselves.) At first she was diligent about working all of the time she was on the clock. She picked up weights, sprayed the machines, and was pleasant to the old men. Now, she just sits at the desk, reads People magazine, and rarely acknowledges anyone's existence. I would not hire her at my video store. I feel the same way about myself. Graduate school has not increased my work ethic. It has made me bitter and a schemer who always tries to find the easy way out of something remotely difficult.
I read this Environmental Engineering T-shirt today with "Saving Humans from Themselves" written on it. I am glad that I now know Environmental Engineers are God.
I was talking to some colleagues today. One said that his brother was going to work for a company located in Ohio that was doubling its workforce (from 100 employees to 200 employees). I made a lame joke about how I thought all of the US's jobs were going to India. One colleague saw the humor, while the other did not. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that economists are part of the problem and not the solution. You should have to understand and appreciate the lessons that economics teaches before they give you a degree in the subject.
I have been observing this weight-room girl for the last four months. (A weight-room girl just scans cards and prays that nobody hurts themselves.) At first she was diligent about working all of the time she was on the clock. She picked up weights, sprayed the machines, and was pleasant to the old men. Now, she just sits at the desk, reads People magazine, and rarely acknowledges anyone's existence. I would not hire her at my video store. I feel the same way about myself. Graduate school has not increased my work ethic. It has made me bitter and a schemer who always tries to find the easy way out of something remotely difficult.
I read this Environmental Engineering T-shirt today with "Saving Humans from Themselves" written on it. I am glad that I now know Environmental Engineers are God.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Good Point and The Myth of Regional Economics
Carlos makes a good point about fear-mongers who do not understand trade. The sad thing is that the majority of the American public do not understand trade, and they think Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan are experts. I blame economists for this state of affairs. Ask Career Intern about his PhD level class in international trade. He learned some mathematically complicated models, but they never talked about how to explain the mutually beneficial nature of trade to the lay person. I am interested to here comments on why you all think that trade is so hard to explain to the masses.
Part of the problem is the myth of regional economics. People think they can grow their region without cost. They do not understand that every dollar they bring in comes from somewhere. Here is a local article about an economic consultancy team who gave suggestions on how to revamp Downtown Harrisonburg, Virginia. The link is only good until tonight so I posted the whole article.
After reading this article, I am ashamed to be an economist. As long as there are consultancy studies like this one, free trade will never be possible. Ask Career Intern about IMPLAN.
Main Street Consultant Gives Assessment http://www.dnronline.com/story1.asp by Dan Wright
Downtown Harrisonburg is not getting its share of the retail dollar.
Downtown merchants are capturing less than 10 percent of the $500 million in buying power wielded by residents of Harrisonburg and Rockingham County, says Kennedy Smith, a principal with the Arlington-based Community Land Use and Economics Group LLC.
As part of the city’s Main Street program, Smith presented a "sales gap analysis" to the Harrisonburg
Downtown Renaissance board of directors Tuesday afternoon.
She cited downtown’s "relatively weak and unfocused retail base" as an issue to be addressed.
Downtown businesses average $155,000 in annual revenue, she said. "Many retail businesses in downtown Harrisonburg are struggling," she said.
Downtown businesses are capturing about 15 percent of the retail purchases made by city residents and about 7 percent of the purchases made by county residents. Those figures should be 20 to 22 percent, she added.
Very few downtown businesses are open in the evenings or on Sundays. Convenient and consistent shopping hours are crucial to building the district’s economic base.
"Mall stores are open until 9 p.m. Why? Because it’s required in their leases," Smith said. "So why don’t downtown leases require it?"
Huge Potential
Despite some challenges, though, the city’s downtown district has the potential to become a thriving destination, Smith said Tuesday.
With more than 2,000 workers, historic buildings and several retail outlets that "appear to be attracting shoppers from a broad geographic area," downtown has potential.
Smith suggested grouping businesses near one another, using destination businesses to generate traffic, and placing convenience businesses near major hubs.
A survey of consumers in the downtown district indicated they want more clothing stores and boutiques, restaurants, specialty grocery stores, bookstores and music venues.
Downtown should work to attract higher-end clothing stores, said Brian Shull, the city’s director of economic
development.
"I think over time that we’ll see different niches develop," Shull said.
He cited recent developments such as One Court Square becoming the Harrisonburg Innovation Center, a zone of information technology businesses, and the Harrisonburg Children’s Museum’s planned move to the A&N building.
"Those are destinations," Shull said. "They are reasons for people to come downtown."
The downtown district needs a major anchor and a sense of community, said Jerry Lawrence, owner of the Daily Grind, which has a location on Court Square.
"Harrisonburg lacks a sense of itself," Lawrence said. "The perception of an outsider is that it’s a town with a mall."
Lawrence recalled a nationally syndicated radio talk show he heard. A woman identified Harrisonburg as "having a lot of Wal-Marts." He thinks the city needs a core concept, possibly the children’s museum or Civil War history.
"Downtown Harrisonburg has huge potential," Lawrence said. "And the heart and soul of any city is its downtown."
Part of the problem is the myth of regional economics. People think they can grow their region without cost. They do not understand that every dollar they bring in comes from somewhere. Here is a local article about an economic consultancy team who gave suggestions on how to revamp Downtown Harrisonburg, Virginia. The link is only good until tonight so I posted the whole article.
After reading this article, I am ashamed to be an economist. As long as there are consultancy studies like this one, free trade will never be possible. Ask Career Intern about IMPLAN.
Main Street Consultant Gives Assessment http://www.dnronline.com/story1.asp by Dan Wright
Downtown Harrisonburg is not getting its share of the retail dollar.
Downtown merchants are capturing less than 10 percent of the $500 million in buying power wielded by residents of Harrisonburg and Rockingham County, says Kennedy Smith, a principal with the Arlington-based Community Land Use and Economics Group LLC.
As part of the city’s Main Street program, Smith presented a "sales gap analysis" to the Harrisonburg
Downtown Renaissance board of directors Tuesday afternoon.
She cited downtown’s "relatively weak and unfocused retail base" as an issue to be addressed.
Downtown businesses average $155,000 in annual revenue, she said. "Many retail businesses in downtown Harrisonburg are struggling," she said.
Downtown businesses are capturing about 15 percent of the retail purchases made by city residents and about 7 percent of the purchases made by county residents. Those figures should be 20 to 22 percent, she added.
Very few downtown businesses are open in the evenings or on Sundays. Convenient and consistent shopping hours are crucial to building the district’s economic base.
"Mall stores are open until 9 p.m. Why? Because it’s required in their leases," Smith said. "So why don’t downtown leases require it?"
Huge Potential
Despite some challenges, though, the city’s downtown district has the potential to become a thriving destination, Smith said Tuesday.
With more than 2,000 workers, historic buildings and several retail outlets that "appear to be attracting shoppers from a broad geographic area," downtown has potential.
Smith suggested grouping businesses near one another, using destination businesses to generate traffic, and placing convenience businesses near major hubs.
A survey of consumers in the downtown district indicated they want more clothing stores and boutiques, restaurants, specialty grocery stores, bookstores and music venues.
Downtown should work to attract higher-end clothing stores, said Brian Shull, the city’s director of economic
development.
"I think over time that we’ll see different niches develop," Shull said.
He cited recent developments such as One Court Square becoming the Harrisonburg Innovation Center, a zone of information technology businesses, and the Harrisonburg Children’s Museum’s planned move to the A&N building.
"Those are destinations," Shull said. "They are reasons for people to come downtown."
The downtown district needs a major anchor and a sense of community, said Jerry Lawrence, owner of the Daily Grind, which has a location on Court Square.
"Harrisonburg lacks a sense of itself," Lawrence said. "The perception of an outsider is that it’s a town with a mall."
Lawrence recalled a nationally syndicated radio talk show he heard. A woman identified Harrisonburg as "having a lot of Wal-Marts." He thinks the city needs a core concept, possibly the children’s museum or Civil War history.
"Downtown Harrisonburg has huge potential," Lawrence said. "And the heart and soul of any city is its downtown."
Don't Hate Me 'Cause I'm Beautiful
Given the increasing hostile mood in Congress toward Beijing, it’s no surprise that this case is becoming heavily politicized. I can see it now: equally cynical members from both sides of the aisle swearing that we have a clear and present danger on our hands. Then the demands that we bolster sales of AGEIS Destroyers and F-16 to Taiwan and that we ought to get rid of the impediments to Japan developing its own military.
But America, I promise that we’re going to be ok. I mean yes if it hold that CNOOC is debt financing their acquisition of Unocal with heavily subsidized Chinese government loans, the dispute ought to be taken to the WTO for review. As I see it, yeah I think their might be something a little fishy when your government is more or less picking up part of your tab. But as the Lou Doubs of this world will suggest that this is all a conspiracy to outsource American jobs and the Pat Buchanans out there will implore the government put up an electric fence around the border and Wall Street, I think these debates will miss the point about what’s really going on. In fact the proposed CNOOC’s acquisition of UNOCAL is one of the many examples of today's changing world.
One doesn't have to go far to realize that money matters in this case like it usually always does, but this is about more than that. It's about power and influence. It's about how China is learning to deal with the envious (and nervous), to be able to exert its mussel in a world that increasing looks at it with suspicion. It's about the fear of losing power and influence too. A role the US has at times tacitly accepted in order to keep a happy China at bay, and at times vociferously resisted.
One thing is for sure: China is not going anywhere anytime soon. Taking absolutist stances and making impossible demands won’t work (Hence I was a little wary when Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez made such demands of China recently). It would be best if our leaders not lead us to an adversarial relationship with China, but rather continue to work with the Chinese no matter if it is painfully politically in the short-run.
But America, I promise that we’re going to be ok. I mean yes if it hold that CNOOC is debt financing their acquisition of Unocal with heavily subsidized Chinese government loans, the dispute ought to be taken to the WTO for review. As I see it, yeah I think their might be something a little fishy when your government is more or less picking up part of your tab. But as the Lou Doubs of this world will suggest that this is all a conspiracy to outsource American jobs and the Pat Buchanans out there will implore the government put up an electric fence around the border and Wall Street, I think these debates will miss the point about what’s really going on. In fact the proposed CNOOC’s acquisition of UNOCAL is one of the many examples of today's changing world.
One doesn't have to go far to realize that money matters in this case like it usually always does, but this is about more than that. It's about power and influence. It's about how China is learning to deal with the envious (and nervous), to be able to exert its mussel in a world that increasing looks at it with suspicion. It's about the fear of losing power and influence too. A role the US has at times tacitly accepted in order to keep a happy China at bay, and at times vociferously resisted.
One thing is for sure: China is not going anywhere anytime soon. Taking absolutist stances and making impossible demands won’t work (Hence I was a little wary when Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez made such demands of China recently). It would be best if our leaders not lead us to an adversarial relationship with China, but rather continue to work with the Chinese no matter if it is painfully politically in the short-run.
Let's be friends
Why?
Given the increasing hostile mood in Congress toward Beijing, it’s no surprise that this case is becoming heavily politicized. I can see it now: equally cynical members from both sides of the aisle swearing that we have a clear and present danger on our hands. Then the demands that we bolster sales of AGEIS Destroyers and F-16 to Taiwan and that we ought to get rid of the impediments to Japan developing its own military.
But America, I promise that we’re going to be ok. I mean yes if it hold that CNOOC is debt financing their acquisition of Unocal with heavily subsidized Chinese government loans, the dispute ought to be taken to the WTO for review. As I see it, yeah I think their might be something a little fishy when your government more or less is picking up part of your tab.
But as the Lou Doubs of this world will suggest that this is all a conspiracy to outsource American jobs and the Pat Buchanans out there will implore the government put up an electric fence around the border and Wall Street, I think these debates will miss the point about what’s really going on. In fact the proposed CNOOC’s acquisition of UNOCAL is one of the many examples of today's changing world.
One doesn't have to go far to realize that money matters in this case like it usually always does, but this is about more than that. It's about power and influence. It's about how China is learning to deal with the envious (and nervous), to be able to exert its mussel in a world that increasing looks at it with suspicion. It's about the fear of losing power and influence too. A role the US has at times tacitly accepted in order to keep a happy China at bay, and at times vociferously resisted.
One thing is for sure: China is not going anywhere anytime soon. Taking absolutist stances and making impossible demands won’t work (Hence I was a little wary when Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez hinted at such demands toward China recently). It would be best if our leaders not lead us to an adversarial relationship with China, but rather continue to work with them, no matter if it is painfully politically in the short-run.
Given the increasing hostile mood in Congress toward Beijing, it’s no surprise that this case is becoming heavily politicized. I can see it now: equally cynical members from both sides of the aisle swearing that we have a clear and present danger on our hands. Then the demands that we bolster sales of AGEIS Destroyers and F-16 to Taiwan and that we ought to get rid of the impediments to Japan developing its own military.
But America, I promise that we’re going to be ok. I mean yes if it hold that CNOOC is debt financing their acquisition of Unocal with heavily subsidized Chinese government loans, the dispute ought to be taken to the WTO for review. As I see it, yeah I think their might be something a little fishy when your government more or less is picking up part of your tab.
But as the Lou Doubs of this world will suggest that this is all a conspiracy to outsource American jobs and the Pat Buchanans out there will implore the government put up an electric fence around the border and Wall Street, I think these debates will miss the point about what’s really going on. In fact the proposed CNOOC’s acquisition of UNOCAL is one of the many examples of today's changing world.
One doesn't have to go far to realize that money matters in this case like it usually always does, but this is about more than that. It's about power and influence. It's about how China is learning to deal with the envious (and nervous), to be able to exert its mussel in a world that increasing looks at it with suspicion. It's about the fear of losing power and influence too. A role the US has at times tacitly accepted in order to keep a happy China at bay, and at times vociferously resisted.
One thing is for sure: China is not going anywhere anytime soon. Taking absolutist stances and making impossible demands won’t work (Hence I was a little wary when Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez hinted at such demands toward China recently). It would be best if our leaders not lead us to an adversarial relationship with China, but rather continue to work with them, no matter if it is painfully politically in the short-run.
China, Oil, and US Bureaucracy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/worldbusiness/13unocal.html?th&emc=th
"Many economists and oil specialists are skeptical that owning oil is vital to national security. Controlling the oil and gas reserves in the ground, they say, does not increase a nation's energy security as long as there is a deep worldwide market for buying it by the barrel or tanker.
But the national security concern raised by members of Congress, their advisers and some oil experts is that the petroleum market may be changing because of tight supplies, rapidly rising demand from fast-growing nations like China and India, and the increasing strategy among state-owned oil companies to control reserves."
China wants to buy a company in the free market. But, instead of selling that company's products on the free market, it is going to horde the products for itself, build a dominant military, and conquer the rest of the world.
China has gotten rich trading with the free world. It sends developed countries cheap goods, while the developed world educates its children and provides returns on its capital investments.
It is sad that members of Congress do not understand the mutually beneficial nature of trade. The national security problem is protectionism that will starve the world of increased productivity.
"Many economists and oil specialists are skeptical that owning oil is vital to national security. Controlling the oil and gas reserves in the ground, they say, does not increase a nation's energy security as long as there is a deep worldwide market for buying it by the barrel or tanker.
But the national security concern raised by members of Congress, their advisers and some oil experts is that the petroleum market may be changing because of tight supplies, rapidly rising demand from fast-growing nations like China and India, and the increasing strategy among state-owned oil companies to control reserves."
China wants to buy a company in the free market. But, instead of selling that company's products on the free market, it is going to horde the products for itself, build a dominant military, and conquer the rest of the world.
China has gotten rich trading with the free world. It sends developed countries cheap goods, while the developed world educates its children and provides returns on its capital investments.
It is sad that members of Congress do not understand the mutually beneficial nature of trade. The national security problem is protectionism that will starve the world of increased productivity.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
India and Opportunity
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/opinion/12mehta.html?th&emc=th&oref=login
If you need a password go to www.bugmenot.com.
"The rich countries can't have it both ways. They can't provide huge subsidies for their agricultural conglomerates and complain when Indians who can't make a living on their farms then go to the cities and study computers and take away their jobs. Why are Indians willing to write code for a tenth of what Americans make for the same work? It's not by choice; it's because they're still struggling to stand on their feet after 200 years of colonial rule. The day will soon come when Indian companies will find that it's cheaper to hire computer programmers in Sri Lanka, and then it's there that the Indian jobs will go.
Of course, it's heart-wrenching to see American programmers - many of whom are of Indian origin - lose their jobs and have to worry about how they'll pay the mortgage. But they are ill served by politicians who promise to bring their jobs back by the facile tactic of banning them from leaving. This strategy will ensure only that our schools stay terrible; it'll be an entire country run like the dairy industry, feasible only because of price controls and subsidies.
But we have a resource of incalculable worth right here to help us compete: the immigrants who've been given a new life in America. There are many more Indians in the United States than there are Americans in India. Indian-Americans will help America understand India, trade with it to our mutual benefit. Just as Arab-Americans can help us fight Al Qaeda, Indian-Americans can help us deal with the emerging economic superpower that is India. This is the return of the gift of citizenship."
This gentleman understands the importance of labor mobility. On the whole, he gets it.
If you need a password go to www.bugmenot.com.
"The rich countries can't have it both ways. They can't provide huge subsidies for their agricultural conglomerates and complain when Indians who can't make a living on their farms then go to the cities and study computers and take away their jobs. Why are Indians willing to write code for a tenth of what Americans make for the same work? It's not by choice; it's because they're still struggling to stand on their feet after 200 years of colonial rule. The day will soon come when Indian companies will find that it's cheaper to hire computer programmers in Sri Lanka, and then it's there that the Indian jobs will go.
Of course, it's heart-wrenching to see American programmers - many of whom are of Indian origin - lose their jobs and have to worry about how they'll pay the mortgage. But they are ill served by politicians who promise to bring their jobs back by the facile tactic of banning them from leaving. This strategy will ensure only that our schools stay terrible; it'll be an entire country run like the dairy industry, feasible only because of price controls and subsidies.
But we have a resource of incalculable worth right here to help us compete: the immigrants who've been given a new life in America. There are many more Indians in the United States than there are Americans in India. Indian-Americans will help America understand India, trade with it to our mutual benefit. Just as Arab-Americans can help us fight Al Qaeda, Indian-Americans can help us deal with the emerging economic superpower that is India. This is the return of the gift of citizenship."
This gentleman understands the importance of labor mobility. On the whole, he gets it.
How Old Am I?
This week is freshman orientation at the university. I am trying to get a shot at the clinic when a freshman girl with a little spaghetti strapped halter top and breasts begging to come out and play walks into the waiting room where I am sitting. She is terrified that she has not chosen a major, that she chose the wrong classes, that her roommate will be the devil, and all of the rest of the things that freshman fear. She immediately recognizes from my baldness that I am not a freshman and spills her troubles. My answer was: "Trust me. I am a professional student. It will all work out." At the time, I thought I helped the girl, but now all I can think about is how old I am (and her perky breasts.)
I know this anecdote does not have much to do with searching for the Truth, but I feel better now that I have written it.
But, I cannot help to point out that six years of college does make you a more productive citizen. I know so much more than I did as a freshman. Establishing human capital will always be the key to growth on both a personal and national level.
I know this anecdote does not have much to do with searching for the Truth, but I feel better now that I have written it.
But, I cannot help to point out that six years of college does make you a more productive citizen. I know so much more than I did as a freshman. Establishing human capital will always be the key to growth on both a personal and national level.
China, Oil, US Senators, and the WTO
http://businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/d8b9u6lo0.htm?campaign_id=apn_asia_up
So what if the loans are subsidized? It certainly does not concern US Senators. The Chinese people are the ones being hurt by their government's market interference. Mr. Conrad and Mr. Bunning's proposal can only hurt Unocal shareholders. Considering that their constituencies contain more Unocal shareholders than Chinese citizens, I do not understand their logic.
As for the WTO, the US should eliminate all tariffs and subsidies and leave the WTO. Free trade is the dominant strategy for any country. As long as there is a WTO, there cannot be absolute free trade, because the WTO needs trade barriers and subsidies to justify its existence. A constitutional amendment guaranteeing free trade would be a good start in cleaning up Washington.
So what if the loans are subsidized? It certainly does not concern US Senators. The Chinese people are the ones being hurt by their government's market interference. Mr. Conrad and Mr. Bunning's proposal can only hurt Unocal shareholders. Considering that their constituencies contain more Unocal shareholders than Chinese citizens, I do not understand their logic.
As for the WTO, the US should eliminate all tariffs and subsidies and leave the WTO. Free trade is the dominant strategy for any country. As long as there is a WTO, there cannot be absolute free trade, because the WTO needs trade barriers and subsidies to justify its existence. A constitutional amendment guaranteeing free trade would be a good start in cleaning up Washington.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Statement of Purpose
"Adam Smith's enormous authority resides, in the end, in the same property that we discover Marx: not in any ideology, but in an effort to see to the bottom of things." Robert L. Heilbroner commenting on An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
With this blog, we are throwing ourselves into the fray. Our only purpose is to discover the Truth, even if it puts our weak intellects out there for criticism. We are no Adam Smiths, but we are putting forth "an effort to see to the bottom of things."
With this blog, we are throwing ourselves into the fray. Our only purpose is to discover the Truth, even if it puts our weak intellects out there for criticism. We are no Adam Smiths, but we are putting forth "an effort to see to the bottom of things."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)