Great point. 

Shall we tackle "healthy protectionism" in our next podcast?

E

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2016, at 08:28, Chris Hahn <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> This is an important lesson in economic history, by George Will.  Trump’s 
> campaign rhetoric makes it seem as if he is unaware of the dangers of 
> protectionism, or that he doesn’t care.  I hope he gets the message from 
> somebody.
> Chris
>  
>  
>  
> December 28. 2016 10:39PM
> 
> George Will: Making America 1953 again
> By GEORGE WILL
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> 
> It is axiomatic that if someone is sufficiently eager to disbelieve 
> something, there is no Everest of evidence too large to be ignored. This 
> explains today’s revival of protectionism, which is a plan to make America 
> great again by making it 1953 again.
> 
> This was when manufacturing’s postwar share of the labor force peaked at 
> about 30 percent. The decline that began then was not caused by manufactured 
> imports from today’s designated villain, China, which was a peasant society. 
> Rather, the war-devastated economies of competitor nations were reviving. 
> And, domestically, the age of highly technological manufacturing was dawning.
> 
> Since 1900, the portion of the American workforce in agriculture has declined 
> from 40 percent to 2 percent. Output per remaining farmer and per acre has 
> soared since millions of agricultural workers made the modernization trek 
> from farms to more productive employment in city factories. Was this trek 
> regrettable?
> 
> According to a Ball State University study, of the 5.6 million manufacturing 
> jobs lost between 2000 and 2010, trade accounted for 13 percent of job losses 
> and productivity improvements accounted for more than 85 percent: “Had we 
> kept 2000-levels of productivity and applied them to 2010-levels of 
> production, we would have required 20.9 million manufacturing workers (in 
> 2010). Instead, we employed only 12.1 million.” Is this regrettable? China, 
> too, is shedding manufacturing jobs because of productivity improvements.
> 
> Douglas A. Irwin of Dartmouth College notes that Chinese imports may have 
> cost almost one million manufacturing jobs in nearly a decade, but “the 
> normal churn of U.S. labor markets results in roughly 1.7 million layoffs 
> every month.” He notes that there are more than 45 million Americans in 
> poverty, “stretching every dollar they have.” The apparel industry employs 
> 135,000 Americans. Can one really justify tariffs that increase the price of 
> clothing for the 45 million in order to save some of the 135,000 low-wage 
> jobs? Anyway, if tariffs target apparel imports from China, imports will 
> surge from other low-wage developing nations.
> 
> The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip, who reports that there currently are 
> 334,000 vacant manufacturing jobs, says that when Jimmy Carter tried to 
> protect U.S. manufacturers by restricting imports of Japanese televisions, 
> imports from South Korea and Taiwan increased. When those were restricted, 
> Mexican and Singapore manufacturers benefited.
> 
> In his book “An Extraordinary Time: The End of the Postwar Boom and the 
> Return of the Ordinary Economy,” Marc Levinson recalls the 1970 agonies about 
> Japanese bolts, nuts and screws. Under the 1974 Trade Act, companies or 
> unions claiming “serious injury” — undefined by the law — from imports could 
> demand tariffs to price the imports out of the market. Of the hundreds of 
> U.S. bolt, nut and screw factories, some were, Levinson writes, “highly 
> automated, others so old that gloved workers held individual bolts with tongs 
> to heat them in a forge.” A three-year 15 percent tariff enabled domestic 
> producers to raise their prices, thereby raising the costs of many American 
> manufacturers. By one estimate, each U.S. job “saved” cost $550,000 as the 
> average bolt-nut-screw worker was earning $23,000 annually. And by the 
> mid-1980s, inflation-adjusted sales of domestic makers were 15 percent below 
> the 1979 level.
> 
> Levinson notes that Ronald Reagan imposed “voluntary restraints” on Japanese 
> automobile exports, thereby creating 44,100 U.S. jobs. But the cost to 
> consumers was $8.5 billion in higher prices, or $193,000 per job created, six 
> times the average annual pay of a U.S. autoworker. And there were job losses 
> in sectors of the economy into which the $8.5 billion of consumer spending 
> could not flow. The Japanese responded by sending higher-end cars, from which 
> they made higher profits, which they used to build North American assembly 
> plants and to develop more expensive and profitable cars to compete with 
> those of U.S. manufacturers.
> 
> In 2012, Barack Obama boasted that “over a thousand Americans are working 
> today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires.” But this cost about 
> $900,000 per job, paid by American purchasers of vehicles and tires. And the 
> Peterson Institute for International Economics says that this money taken 
> from consumers reduced their spending on other retail goods, bringing the net 
> job loss from the job-saving tire tariffs to around 2,500. And this was 
> before China imposed retaliatory duties on U.S. chicken parts, costing the 
> U.S. industry $1 billion in sales. Imports of low-end tires from Thailand, 
> Indonesia, Mexico and elsewhere largely replaced Chinese imports.
> 
> The past is prologue. The future probably will feature many more such 
> self-defeating government interventions in the name of compassion as 
> protectionist America tries to cower its way to being great again.
> 
> 
> George Will’s email address is [email protected].
>  
> -- 
> -- 
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
> <[email protected]>
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to