Loss of Manufacturing Equates to Loss of Innovation

Excellent article over at Forbes on why high-tech manufacturing is so important to keep "in-house", yet the standard rules of business lead to the economically-destructive practice of out-sourcing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

excerpt:

Dell accepted the proposal (to outsource circuit boards) because from a perspective of making money, it made sense: Dell’s revenues were unaffected and its profits improved significantly. On successive occasions, ASUSTeK came back and took over the motherboard, the assembly of the computer, the management of the supply chain and the design of the computer. In each case Dell accepted the proposal because from a perspective of making money, it made sense: Dell’s revenues were unaffected and its profits improved significantly. However, the next time ASUSTeK came back, it wasn’t to talk to Dell. It was to talk to Best Buy and other retailers to tell them that they could offer them their own brand or any brand PC for 20% lower cost. As The Innovator’s Prescription concludes:

Bingo. One company gone, another has taken its place. There’s no stupidity in the story. The managers in both companies did exactly what business school professors and the best management consultants would tell them to do—improve profitability by focus on on those activities that are profitable and by getting out of activities that are less profitable.

Preserving our Way of Life with a New Economic Policy

Jim brings up a great question over at his Great Depression blog. In the international race to the bottom in wages, can we do anything, or are we doomed to economic collapse as cheap-labor countries wipe us out? Here my thoughts on a rational economic policy in our globalized world.

Part of our high pay rate is definitely our social net. From environmental protections to health care costs to retirement benefits, our entire government-based social services safety net, in fact our entire quality of life, is build on the bedrock of our wages.

Because our entire quality of life, and the government itself is build on it, clearly, gov't policy should be to preserve our high wage jobs. But how to do so in a world of global capital flows and international communication as the basis of the information economy? We are no longer in the 1930's, so tarriff walls against imported products, while an important step, will not be sufficient

We need a new concept: call it a "foreign labor tarriff". Meaning, a company's percentage of foreign workers would determine its tax treatment. It is no longer enough to worry about imported goods. We also have to combat outsourincing in "knowledge work" service field, such as medicine, information technology, accounting, and education.

Companies whose path to larger profit lines is along the road of wage arbitrage need to be stimied. Wage arbitrage by global companies has one end result: greater concentration of profits for the parasitic global investment class, at the expense of the deteriorating American quality of life and impoverished American working class.

It is a basic economic law: you have to be a producer before you can enter the market as a consumer. If you aren't producing something, you have no basis of wealth to enter into an economic transaction. In short, JOBS HAVE TO COME FIRST.

This is common sense. Who exactly is distributing the crazy pills? Until our gov't forumates an economic policy that is based on preserving our quality of life, we will continue to get poorer and poorer.

Can the Whole World be Export-Driven?

News is all about the falling dollar causing panic across the world, as higher currencies undermine exporting efforts. Said the leader of Brazil's state development bank (source here): “We have to be careful that our exchange rate doesn’t appreciate too much as to deindustrialize the country. The capital goods industry has suffered tremendously.” Brazil's Finance Ministry says Brazil’s currency needs to weaken as much as 19 percent for sustainable economic growth. As another example, France’s Finance Minister also stated that her government favors a strong dollar as an appreciating euro threatens to hurt European exports.

Everyone wants to expor their way to prosperity, which begs the obvious question of how that could even be possible. Implicit is the obvious truth (obvious to everyone but brainwashed free-marketeers) that exports increase a country's wealth. Yet obviously, not everyone can be a net exporter!


The chief beneficiaries are, of course, Americans, for at least as long as the export-at-all-costs party lasts. Americans get access to the cheapest stuff on the planet, because everyone undercuts their own currency to keep their exports to America up.

Unfortunately, it also means that aforementioned and wisely despised deindustrialization occurs in America at the same time! woops

What are the foreigners even getting out of it? Rapidly depreciating dollars. The world is currently being flooded with dollars, pumping up developing economies. "An unprecedented net $47 billion flowed into equities in India, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand in the last three quarters." and this: "Chile’s peso has strengthened 26 percent this year versus the dollar, the second-biggest gain among Latin American currencies after the 33 percent rise in the Brazilian real."

As long as US rates stay low, money will flow out of the US into other countries, in what is called the carry trade. Cheap imports flow in, dollars flow out.

And we stare years of chronic high-unemployment in the face! It's no wonder, is it??? The whole process is just wacky.

The only sustainable solution is balanced trade based on policies of local development.

Global Trade, Debt, and Stimulus: a short Explanation

The Chinese run a large trade surplus with the US. This leads them to have a huge stockpile of dollars. This allows them to peg their own currency to whatever dollar value they want. Since they do all their foreign trade in dollars, there is simply no international market for their domestic currency, so international traders are simply shut out. (For other countries who do trade their currencies on the international market, lacking a supply of dollars means that currency traders could make runs on their currency, and the buying and selling of it would be out of their control.)

The surplus of extra dollars leaves the Chinese with a question of what to do with those dollars. In the past, they were content to invest in US debt securities, in effect, expanding their supply of dollars. However, stockpiling dollars is good for the Chinese in absolute terms, because dollars are the international trade currency. Thus, with extra dollars, they can buy anything else in the world.

When the international collapse in trade happened last year, many analysts thought China would be hit hard, because they are so export-dependent. However, they responded to the collapse in export trade with an almost unbelievably large dose of domestic spending. This is where their dollar stockpile came in, because they were able to stimulate their own economy by spending all the dollars they had stockpiled buying raw materials.

Oil, copper, rare elements, whatever they wanted, they were able to buy, using their dollars. They have also been investing heavily in gold, although not for use in industrial stimulus, but as a hedge against dollar collapse.

They could then pay their citizens in their own currency to do the work. Printing out their own money for domestic projects was not necessarily inflationary. For one, it was partially just holding the line, fighting deflation and unemployment from the collapse in international trade. For another, it can’t cause a currency devaluation, because their currency is not traded internationally.

The same process, printing out your own money, does not work for making international payments. Foreigners will see that you are diluting your money, and the exchange rate will fall. This defeats the purpose of printing more money in the first place, since it now costs more for the same trade.

For this reason, many times throughout world history, two types of money are used, one for domestic trade, one for international trade. For example, the US went off the gold standard for domestic dollars in 1933, but didn’t go off the gold standard for international dollars until 1971. It is also the reason why the world is clamoring for a new international trade currency now. International trade needs an absolute standard of measure, to prevent countries from screwing the system by printing more of their own currency (such as they see the US doing now).

So, with their stimulus money, the Chinese have been stockpiling raw materials and using them to put their people to work on infrastructure projects. This is true capital investment, and increases their wealth-creating capacity for the future, as well as putting people to work today.

Our stimulus money is not based on a trade surplus, but is simply based on diluting the dollar through deficit spending and monetization of government debt. Nor is our stimulus money providing the basis for future wealth creation or even repairing old infrastructure. Our stimulus money is simply covering budget shortfalls and continuing welfare payments. Thus, we will be in a worse position when the stimulus ends, having the same economic condition, but then with a higher debt load.

Looking forward, the US economy is in between a rock and a hard place. Keeping the dollar as the international reserve currency means that the US will continue to have its industrial base undercut by cheaper foreign competition and be the target for mass immigration because of the overvalued dollar. When the change finally happens, and the dollar is removed as international reserve, the US faces a massive inflation, from the return of dollars to domestic use and currency devaluation. The longer we wait, the worse the economic collapse will be when it does happen, since we will have to rebuild our industrial economy from scratch.

The only solution to that guaranteed eventuality is to take aggressive proactive steps, sooner rather than later. For example, the US should take decisive steps to safeguard its industrial base now, while the dollar is strong, rather than later, after currency collapse. The US should also cease all inflationary policies (such as deficit spending and monetization of debt), which are literally driving the world away from the dollar reserve standard. An even more radical approach would involve repudiation of the national debt, leaving the rest of the world holding the bag of worthless paper, and reinvesting in America’s industrial powerbase through protection from imports and outsourcing/off shoring.

In short, Americans should start thinking of themselves a people, rather than just as expendable units of profit manipulation in an international economy.

Chinese Industrial Policy of Piracy

Capitalism divorced from any ethics or morality, this is the Chinese way.

Sun Danyong, the 25-year-old suicide victim who worked at contract cellphone maker Foxconn International's massive gray and white factory complex in Dongguan, had 16 prototypes of Apple's new fourth-generation iPhone in his possession, according to the Taiwanese company. When one went missing, Foxconn's security guards raided his apartment, according to a report in the People's Daily. The phone didn't turn up. A likely answer, according to security experts, is that the device ended up in the hands of Shenzhen's notoriously entrepreneurial counterfeiters.

"The copying of prototypes certainly happens a lot in the electronics and IT industries," said Dane Chamorro, a regional general manager with Control Risks, a corporate investigations consulting firm. "You don't have to steal them, you just have to borrow one for a day." In an earlier interview with the New York Times, Foxconn's general manager for China said that Mr. Sun had previously lost products "several times" before getting them back again.

Apple computer, whose popular iPhone is widely copied in China, isn't the only foreign handset maker to suffer at the hands of counterfeiters. Knock-offs of Samsung, Nokia and Motorola products are all sold openly throughout China.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 81 percent of all counterfeit goods seized at the U.S. border were from China. The value of those goods rose 40 percent in 2008, to $221.7 million.

"Mainland China is the riskiest place for foreign firms to introduce their leading-edge technologies," said Steve Vickers, president of Hong Kong-based FTI-International Risk. "It remains a major problem."

A recent visit to the Golconda Cyber Plaza, a sprawling electronics mall in Shenzhen, suggests the scale of the challenge. Hundreds of vendors were showing off their knock-off mobile phones, including counterfeit Nokia and Samsung handsets, and the latest Apple iPhone, which was selling for about US$63, far cheaper than the US$579 charged on Apple's Hong Kong online store. "The iPhone quality is good and quite steady," said Li Jinhui, a salesperson with Shenzhen Guanghui Communication, one of the phone sellers, pointing at one of the counterfeit phones on display. "The real phone price is too expensive, so many people buy this instead."

The copying takes several forms. In some cases, companies copy phones already on the market. In others, local suppliers of foreign companies run extra shifts and sell the surplus goods on the side. Then there are the designs that get stolen even before production. This last form may be the most damaging, since it undermines costly efforts to build anticipation about upcoming products.

Theives have become adept at exploiting weak points in companies' security arrangements. According to Nicholas Blank, an associate managing director with security firm Kroll, the typical Chinese factory is protected only by guards who check the IDs of employees entering the facility.

"Unfortunately, in most of these schemes where intellectual property is stolen from a factory, it's not someone breaking in," said Blank. "It's usually an employee or a contractor who already has access to the facility." Even where internal security is more elaborate, counterfeiters may be able to identify which employees have access to product samples and bribe them. "If you wanted to know what a company's next design would be, you can pretty well target those in the OEM organizations who are holding the prototypes," said Chamorro. "It's not rocket science to throw money at them."

China's legal system hasn't helped matters. Intellectual property cases are hard to bring and even harder to enforce, according to attorneys. One problem is that China's criminal code specifies a minimum value for seized goods in order to trigger criminal action -- seizures worth less than 50,000 yuan ($7,330) aren't prosecuted by the police. Counterfeiters have responded by limiting the size and value of their shipments.

Another worry is that anti-piracy enforcement may have weakened during China's economic slowdown. According to a report by the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition, coalition members have been told by local police that they were under instructions not to pursue criminal cases against counterfeiters. "Overall, we've seen a deterioration," said one Hong Kong-based lawyer who declined to be named. "There's a lot of concern that the government has openly told local forces not to pursue as many cases because of the impact it might have on jobs and social stability."




http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56T0BL20090730

The Paradox of International Trade Deficits

Many people still have the idea that a trade deficit is an unqualified negative, but since we went off the gold standard, that unqualified judgment no longer really applies.

Back in the days of the gold standard, an imbalance of trade would be settled in gold. So, a country operating a trade deficit would be chronically bleeding gold. In fact, that exact thing was happening to America in the early 1970s, leading Nixon to take the dollar off of its international gold standard .

The situation today is much different. The deficit country gives slips of paper to the surpluss country, in return for real goods. Who is really getting rich in that scenario? Obviously, its better to get stuff and give paper. The surplus trade partner is just plain dumb in the first place for accepting a non-objective currency as a settlement of account.

They are even dumber for then reinvesting those dollars in dollar-denominated debt. Seriously, would you give a loan to someone expecting repayment in a paper currency they can print out at will? It is asking to be taken advantage of, quite frankly.

The only rational thing to do with a paper currency from a foreign issuer is to immediately plow it back into real goods and services.

This analysis merely highlights how irrational Chinese economic policy has been. Actually, to be clear, it is only irrational from the perspective of maximizing value. It is not irrational, it makes perfect sense actually, in light of their true policy objective: full employment. The Chinese are willing to sacrifice a great deal to maintain full employment.

The problem for us is that by hitching our economies together, our economy is distorted by their irrational economic objectives. We get tons of cheap Chinese junk and a bloated financial sector, but lose real productive jobs.

Worst of all, we are subsidizing the unsustainable, inefficient, and destructive production goals of the Chinese government. In classical economic terms, this is called malinvestment.

It makes no economic sense to keep people employed by making half of them construct houses and the other half tear them down. But under a command economy, such economically destructive processes go on all the time. In fact, the Chinese already have a large overcapacity of housing supply, but that doesn't stop them from building more under the direction of central planners.

In the Soviet days, their planned economy was isolated, firewalled off from the free world. Today, ours is linked to theirs. On the one hand, we benefit from all the cheap goods they give to us for paper dollars, on the other hand, we suffer from inflated commodity prices and the loss of jobs, and we encourage an unsustainable and destructive economic system.

The Real Costs of Business with China

Great article detailing the practice of business with the Chinese. In sum, they are untrustworthy, highly unethical, and frankly brutal in the treatment of business partners. Read the following book review for yourself.



Poorly Made in China by Paul Midler
Reviewed by Muhammad Cohen

When you buy for US$2 in New York an umbrella that's made in China, you have to wonder how they do it. After all, the umbrella components have to cost something, there's shipping, and there's profit for numerous middlemen and the retailer. Among the economic miracles unfolding in China over the past two decades, the most mysterious may be how a country that skipped the Industrial Revolution, substituting the Cultural Revolution, became the low-cost factory floor to the world.

Poorly Made in China: An Insider's Account of the Tactics Behind China's Production Game provides fascinating and disturbing answers. Chinese manufacturers cut corners wherever they can, from product quality to factory equipment and maintenance. They unilaterally change product and packaging specifications to trim costs. They raise prices after the deal is signed, leaving the importer to absorb the added cost. They reproduce their customers' products for sale at higher margins in other markets. With support from government, bankers, and networks of fellow manufacturers, they conduct manufacturing and customer relations as a game, treating the other party as a patsy not a partner, playing for the short term of making an extra penny at the risk of product quality but also taking a long-term, multidimensional outlook that outflanks the hapless customer.

. . .
cont.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KG18Ad02.html

International Trade and Protectionism, part 3

Policy Implications

Americans spent 200 years of industrialization building up a high quality of life and standard of living, only to watch it petered away in the last generation through out-sourcing of industries and in-sourcing of cheap replacement labor. It shouldn’t be surprising that our average wage and quality of life have been deteriorating for the last 30 years.

The American wage supports an entire way of life, including a minimum wage, safety standards, environmental protections, health care costs, affirmative action set asides, and a retirement system.

Allowing jobs to be out-sourced to low wage countries destroys those aspects of the American dream. Obviously, foreign workers who have none of those advantages can work by the hour for cheaper, but the true cost is borne by American society as a whole.

A rational economic policy for America would safeguard the foundations of our industrial and productive strength. Trade should be open and free when based on true comparative advantage and fair competition, in other words, when it truly benefits both countries.

Imports from countries that do not support an equivalent standard of living should be penalized with a tariff, with the tariff revenue being used to support the American way of life that is undermined by the import.

Corporations that export American professional jobs should face penalties such as a higher corporate tax rate based on what proportion of their workforce has been off-shored.

Tariffs should be levied across the board on countries who engage in any currency manipulation for trade advantage or provide any export subsidies.

American economic policy should support domestic employment by focusing on a stable and profitable productive base, allowing imports and outsourcing only when it would provide a demonstrable benefit to the American standard of living.

Promoting off-shoring based solely on wage arbitrage is actually economically backwards, resulting in production that is less efficient and more costly when viewed in resource terms. Resource terms are real terms, an absolute measure, as opposed to money terms, which are relative and illusory. If off-shoring destroys a naturally evolved network of comparative advantage, it is economically backwards, even if it appears to "save money" in dollar terms. In other words, it is bad for the whole world's economy overall, not just the American economy.

Economic regions are defined by geography, common currency, free labor movement, and transportation integration. Economic regions should be encouraged to become as independent as possible, based on natural comparative advantages, which save resources and produce goods more cheaply on an absolute scale.

Trade which is based on those comparative advantages between regions should be encouraged. However, wholesale relocation of productive industry from one region to another should be discouraged. Rather, domestic industries in each region should be nourished, with the goal of uplifting standards of living in each region without lowing standards of living in another, while maximizing the efficient use of scarce resources everywhere.

Only in this way can a long-term sustainable global economy, with rising standards of living for all, be established.

International Trade: Comparative Advantage and Protectionism, part 2

That money saved is the usual macro-economic justification for off-shoring in the first place. Theoretically, that money saved creates a job elsewhere in the economy. This is where so many people trip up, unable to differentiate monetary effects from real economic effects. In real economic effects, production of the same output has become less efficient and capital destroyed.
The great lie told during this generation of outsourcing has been that these laid-off workers would move up the knowledge chain, into higher value-added occupations. However, we can see that this is empirically false.

The fact is, there is a natural limit to the amount of “knowledge economy” jobs that are available. Knowledge jobs (traditionally called white collar) are subsidiary jobs: they exist to support some other industry. Remove the base industry, and the knowledge job disappears with it.

The idea that you can have an entire economy based on knowledge jobs is silly, it does not even make sense. There are only so many accountants, teachers, lawyers, salesmen, and consultants needed for a given population. They are subsidiary jobs because all of these “knowledge-work” professions depend on other industries to create the wealth. Without a primary base of wealth-creating enterprises, white collar jobs are not required. The same thing goes for so-called service jobs. You can’t base an economy on retail, restaurants, hair stylists, and spas. All those jobs are possible in a wealthy and nicely diversified economy, but without a wealth-creating base, they wither and die as overall standards of living fall, because there is less real wealth circulating.

This is a simple truth: at the base of every economy are the wealth-producers, who create and build something tangible that improves our quality of life. Mining, farming, chemicals, steel, plastics, textiles, and manufacturing of all kinds, that is the basis of the modern economy. A huge chunk of white collar economic activity then develops to support those industries, trailing off into the salesmen and retail stores that move the wealth. Teachers, doctors, police, and government workers are necessary for civil society, but they do not create wealth, and their standard of living is dependent on the wealth-producing industries.

To help clarify the economic principle, let’s look at a practical example. A car factory in Michigan is shut down, with production moved to a car factory in China instead. Physical plant in Michigan is destroyed, and skilled workers are fired. Cars intended for the American market are now shipped in from China, consuming extra resources in the transportation process.

The process is only economically justified if the displaced workers can find a new activity that produces greater wealth than what they did before. Is that even possible? What are their options? In the real world, such displaced workers have to switch careers, becoming truck drivers, plumbers, laborers, or whatever. Does that increase wealth? Unfortunately not. Unless they are shifted to another wealth creating activity, they will merely become wealth-consumers, and compete with other workers in some service job. So, they lose their own high previous wage, and drive down wages in whatever field they go into, while adding nothing of wealth to the economy as a whole.

But what about the money the car company saved? Doesn’t that return somewhere in some efficiency to create a new job? Let’s follow the money trail and see. Ok, so assume the company’s dollar profits just went up by lowering labor costs. The dollars return to the US economy through executive salaries and stock owner dividends. From a class perspective, the rich just got richer and the poor got poorer, but is it good from a macroeconomic perspective?

The question is, what happens to those dollars when they enter the domestic economy? Of course, there are less dollars in the US economy at first, because the laid-off worker is not being paid. Say the worker was paid 100 dollars, but after outsourcing, 50 dollars go to the Chinese worker, and the remaining 50 dollars goes to corporate profits. However, the 50 dollars paid to the Chinaman have to come back to the US economy eventually, as dollars can’t be used in China. But when the dollars do get back to the US, there is less stuff to buy. Less goods are being produced because our industry was lost to outsourcing. A constant amount of dollars chasing fewer goods: a formula for inflation.

The only way to short circuit this process is to make sure the laid-off worker is moved into another productive industry. If the worker transitions to any non-wealth creating job, he will merely be adding to a fixed labor pool, with the effect of driving down wages. There is no way around this. If he becomes a laborer, we now have one more laborer, if he becomes a plumber, we have one more plumber, if he becomes an accountant, we now have one more accountant. In all cases, no new wealth is being produced, so wages can only be driven down as the fields are crowded with displaced workers.

We have the same amount of real wealth available, since the car he built is now build and imported from China. We are poorer in terms of resources however, if for no other reason than the increased transportation costs. We have the same amount of money in circulation, assuming that is kept constant. We just have more workers in other fields. This is known as downward mobility.

Even if he becomes a doctor, which would make him personally richer, the country overall is poorer. His dollar wage may have gone up, and the country gets a needed doctor, but our overall wealth went down. Doctors do not create wealth. Teachers do not create wealth, lawyers do not create wealth, government workers don’t create wealth… The list could go on and on. Unless our displaced worker finds another wealth-producing position to fill, our country got poorer.

Some have objected to protectionism on the grounds of scale, asking, so why doesn’t each state become protectionist, or it must be bad to move a factory from New York to Alabama, for example. Unfortunately, these questions reveal a poor understanding of comparative advantage in regional economies, so let us examine these claims.

Let’s say a factory owner sees a potential profit relocating a factory from high cost New York to low cost Alabama. How is that different from relocating to China? The key difference is the available movement of labor. If the displaced New York factory worker cannot find better employment in New York, he is free to move to Alabama himself and take advantage of its growing economy. Thus, in a regionally integrated economy like the United States, economic progress proceeds generally and in a healthy fashion.

Also, the white collar jobs that support the wealth-building activity are all created locally. So producing cars in Alabama will not only employ laborers and skilled factory workers, but also technicians, engineers, accountants, and lawyers. None of those jobs are available to Americans if the factory is located in China. The local wealth-creation supports higher wages for those positions, and drags up wages overall. This is a "drawing-upwards" of workers into higher standards of living, the opposite of what happens when displaced workers have to get retrained and placed into a labor pool with workers in an already-existing industry.

Americans spent 200 years of industrialization building up a high quality of life and standard of living, only to watch it petered away in the last generation through out-sourcing of industries and in-sourcing of cheap replacement labor. It shouldn’t be surprising that our average wage and quality of life have been deteriorating for the last 30 years.

The American wage supports an entire way of life, including a minimum wage, safety standards, environmental protections, health care costs, affirmative action set asides, and a retirement system. Allowing jobs to be out-sourced to low wage countries destroys those aspects of the American dream. Obviously, foreign workers who have none of those advantages can work by the hour for cheaper, but the true cost is borne by American society as a whole.

A rational economic policy for America would safeguard the foundations of our industrial strength. Trade should be open and free when based on true comparative advantage and fair competition. Imports from countries that do not support an equivalent standard of living should be penalized with a tariff, with the tariff revenue being used to support the American way of life that is undermined by the import. Corporations that export American professional jobs should face penalties such as a higher corporate tax rate based on what proportion of their workforce has been off-shored. Tariffs should be levied across the board on countries who engage in any currency manipulation for trade advantage or provide any export subsidies.

American economic policy should support domestic employment by focusing on a stable and profitable productive base, allowing imports and outsourcing only when it would provide a demonstrable benefit to the American standard of living.

International Trade, Comparative Advantage and Protectionism, part 1

The latest attack of economic propaganda came out of the G8 meeting in Italy today, extolling the virtues of free trade and vowing to fight protectionism. The classic formula -- "the Great Depression was made worse by protectionism" – continues to get ground into our collective mindset until it becomes an unquestioned axiom of thought. Heck, I used to believe it myself, until I actually starting analyzing it.

Here is the short-form rebuttal: in the 1920's, the US was the world’s number 1 exporter and creditor. Today, the US is the world's number 1 importer and debtor. The case against protectionism, for America, does not apply. Less developed countries have understood for centuries that domestic industries often need protection to stand a chance of getting off the ground against larger and richer foreign competition. From colonial America to post-war Japan, nurturing of domestic industry has always been practiced.

But what about today? Have we passed the point where national protectionism is not necessary, that it does more harm than good? In fact, it is the opposite. Our economic world today, more than any other time in history, calls for a certain amount of protectionism. I am not making this claim based on nationalism or some theory of social justice, either (although those arguments have their own merits). I am saying protectionism is justified solely on economic grounds.

In free-trade theory, when a domestic job is displaced due to foreign competition, a new job is supposed to open up somewhere in the economy because of the money saved, based on the efficiencies of comparative advantage in production. The idea is that a foreigner can produce something more efficiently, thus lowering overall costs, thereby freeing up more money, which will create a job somewhere else.

Comparative advantage is a powerful economic theory, and it has much truth to it. In order to understand why it doesn't it apply to certain aspects of international trade today, we have to understand why it does apply to some situations. Only by understanding its truth and correct application, can we understand when it is used falsely and incorrectly applied.

Comparative advantage is mainly rooted in geological and environmental factors. For example, people on grassland plains have a comparative advantage raising cattle, people on the coasts have a comparative advantage catching fish, and people in the mountains have a comparative advantage raising timber. In a primitive economy, people have to raise their own meat, catch their own fish, and build their own houses out of local resources. However, trading freely and widely allows them to specialize in what they have an advantage in, thereby benefitting everyone.

Another aspect of comparative advantage comes from relative location. Thus, a factory close to a source of materials has a comparative advantage over a factory far away. An oil field with easily extracted crude has a comparative advantage over a location with deeper, harder to access oil. A power plant close to its fuel source has a comparative advantage over one farther away, and so on.

All comparative advantage is rooted in the efficient use of scare resources. The rule is: less resources in, cheaper products out. We all get richer, meaning more output in less time using less resources, when everyone is operating at maximum efficiency. Healthy systems of domestic and international trade incorporate those efficiencies. For example, oil from the Middle East is more easily accessed than domestic sources, while coffee and bananas cannot be grown in America. These are exactly the kind of comparative advantages that lie at the heart of healthy trade, making us all wealthier by encouraging us to do what we have a natural efficiency doing.

The problem with comparative advantage in global trade today is that it is not based on real comparative advantage, but only on the illusion of advantage created by money. Thus, the dominant source of comparative advantage today is found in taking advantage of low wage labor in countries with cheap currencies and low standards of living. We are so accustomed to operating in the nominal terms of dollars that we are blinded to the real effects of such wage arbitrage.

Real comparative advantage takes advantage of real efficiencies to increase overall wealth. Exporting jobs to low wage countries decreases real wealth by working against natural efficiencies and increasing input and transportation costs. The problem is thinking in dollar terms, not in real terms. In real terms, what happens when an industry is off-shored? That domestic factory grew up at a natural nexus of efficiency related to labor, materials, markets, and transport. Moving that factory disrupts that natural efficiency and introduces massive inefficiencies. In dollar terms, it seems like a good idea, but in resource terms, it is not.

The comparatively cheap labor rate in dollars is papering over big losses of real wealth as resources are squandered to make factories from scratch in far distant locations. The distant location of the new factory also increases the loss of resources that results from transporting raw material and finished goods to a location that is far removed from either primary resources or consumer markets.

In short, from a purely macro-economic perspective, off-shoring decreases overall wealth. After off-shoring, production is transferred to a new location which takes greater time and uses greater resources. This is the opposite of comparative advantage, which is based on less time and less resources. After off-shoring, the real cost of production, measured in time and resources, has risen.

Meanwhile, at home, the factory is shuttered, meaning capital is destroyed, and the labor is idled, meaning skills and training (human capital) are wasted. Theoretically, these workers are going to find something else to do, but by definition, anything else they do will be less economically efficient, since they have already spent years training, mastering their specific economic role. Anything they do after layoffs will be an economic loss overall, unless they are immediately transferred into some high-value added endeavor.

Off-shoring means that local production networks based on real comparative advantages are tossed aside, throwing away those advantages for the sake of illusory dollar profits. Because no real efficiency is gain, we are actually getting poorer, because there is less overall wealth circulating in the economy.

Most people get stuck on this point, so it bears repeating until it is fully understood: When a production job is outsourced, no real wealth is created. Rather, real wealth is lost as comparative advantages, fixed capital, and labor skills are thrown away. We are actually getting poorer as wealth is thrown away and efficiencies lost. Corporations gain an advantage at the expense of domestic workers because of the illusion of dollar savings, but our collective standard of living falls.

The only hope, the leap of faith in trade theory, is that those displaced workers find a more efficient economic activity. From a macro-economic perspective, that new economic activity has to be more efficient and productive than the previous activity, or the economy has suffered a net loss.

But, should we take that leap of free trade faith? Is it possible for that laid-off worker to find a more productive activity? If they can’t find a more productive activity, their layoff is not economically justified.

Notice the macro perspective I am adopting here. From the macro economic perspective, replacing one worker with another only makes sense if it introduces a real efficiency into the process. Remember, giving a production job to a worker in China, who was previously unemployed, is economically neutral if it merely causes a worker in Detroit to be unemployed. That fact that the new Chinese factory is far away from sources, trade networks, and markets, means that the off-shoring starts out as an economically backward idea, since it consumes greater resources. Moving production to some far-away locale costs more, so it must be justified by a greater efficiency introduced elsewhere, or we have just gotten poorer (since we are using more resources to produce the same goods)!

From the individual corporation’s perspective, laying off the worker for a lower-wage worker increases profits. But that is exactly the illusion created by looking at the situation through the nominal dollar lens. The company is saving money, but by doing so, they are introducing inefficiencies into the economic system. The inefficiencies of off-shoring are only worth it if the displaced workers move into a more efficient occupation.

Notice that the off-shoring company does not care about the displaced worker. They company’s only concern is with their own higher corporate profits. This is the paradox of modern industrial economic policy planning. What saves money for individual companies is often bad for the economy as a whole.

China's Solution: Invest in America

Everyone is talking about China as a prisoner of the current currency problems, as the dollar gets devalued, wiping out their dollar reserves.

Here's a crazy idea: why don't the Chinese use their dollars the way international trade is supposed to work, and buy American. Why is everyone acting like their only choice is to buy more financial securities?

They should do like the Japanese in the 80's: invest in America. Specifically, use their dollars to build factories in America. Especially targeting things that the Chinese people need.

Lord, its like international balance of trade is a frickin' alien concept to the universe...

Newsflash to the Chinese, stop buying paper and debt, which only encourages our idiot politicians to do fiscally unsound things, and invest directly in American industry, which will both expand your bottom line and give you a great ability to trade with America.

Unbalanced International Trade Caused Economic Collapse

The current financial and economic collapse we are experiencing are the direct result of a decade of international trade folly. Most educated people are still repeating the free trade slogans of yesteryear, and have not adjusted their ideological outlook to the contemporary situation. We need to correct this deficiency in knowledge in order to prepare for long term sustainable solutions.

Why did we have a financial bubble? In short, because of unbalanced international trade. Our finance and banking industry has grown out of control relative to its historical share of the economy because of the pattern of international trade. Here is how it went down:

China's Communist political agenda was to modernize their nation through manufacturing protectionism and currency controls. In the classic theory of international trade, foreign trade advances both economies. In short, an import is not bad for the American economy, because it saves the American consumer money, and the money has to eventually return to the American economy in the form of Chinese spending, a win-win situation.

However, Chinese governmental policy subverted this natural balance of trade. Rather than purchasing goods or services (the basis of the real economy) from America, the Chinese hoarded their dollars, investing them in U.S. debt. Thus, the manufacturing industry in America shrunk, while the financial industry expanded, leading to the inevitable bubbles as an excess of money chased a smaller pool of investments.

Obviously, it does not take an economic genius to realize that an economy cannot be based on financial services. In fact, financial services are essentially parasitic (much like government), providing a necessary service by transferring wealth, but not creating any. Banking, like government, may be necessary up to a certain level, but when it grows too large, it destroys the real economy.

Following their protectionist policies, the Chinese built their manufacturing industry, and America built its financial and governmental industries, using the oversupply of cheap money and debt financing.

It is obvious that neither trend is sustainable. The Chinese are now being forced to scale back their export efforts, and build up a sustainable economy based on internal demand. America, likewise, is being forced to scale back financial and governmental efforts, and build up a sustainable economy based on internal supply.

The only long term sustainable economic policy for any nation is through a balance of trade. Free trade only makes sense if it is fair trade. American economic power and stability cannot be separated from the productive capacity of the American people, and it should be American governmental policy to build that productive capacity, not allow it to be undermined.

Back in Henry Ford's day, the interests of American capitalist and worker were aligned, since the workers had to have the income to purchase the capitalist's products. In our era of government-enabled false globalism, when the capitalist can freely outsource labor to cheaper countries, what happens to the American worker? As we can see, falling real income levels have been the real result, which is a sign of disaster for the American economy and way of life. Government policy should sustain and protect the American worker (who is also the American consumer!!!) by re-aligning the interests of American capital and labor. Fair and balanced trade, in real goods and services, must be the end result of any country that seeks to trade with our nation. This is not destructive protectionism, this is common sense.

Reflexive protectionism in time of economic depression is not the cause of the depression, it is a healthy and natural reaction to the global imbalances that led to the depression. Today's free-trader ideologues are like the doctors of old who would apply leeches to their sick patients. At the very door of death, the wise patient rips the leeches off, rather than following the destructive advice of a quack expert who is in fact making the problem worse.

Collapse of global trade - Bank caused

Global trade collapses, why? Because banks are failing to do their job. Banks are the problem in this crisis!



Chris Lytle, chief operating officer of the port of Long Beach, Calif., took in a panorama of the slumping world economy from his rooftop observation deck one day this month.

Shipping cranes stood still, truck traffic trickled and a cargo vessel sat idle, moored to a pier.

"You never see that," Lytle said. "It's quiet. Too quiet."

Port traffic is slowing around the world -- everywhere from North America to Asia -- as a recession erodes consumer demand and the credit crisis chokes off loans to export-dependent companies. International trade is set to fall by more than two per cent next year, the most since the World Bank began measuring it in 1971. Idle ports are showing how quickly a collapse in trade can spread, undermining growth in each country it reaches.

September and October are typically Long Beach's busiest months as U.S. retailers take deliveries for holiday sales. This year, September imports fell 15.8 per cent from a year earlier, October's dropped 9.5 per cent, and November's slid 13.6 per cent.

"Everybody expects 2009 to be a bleak year," said Jim McKenna, chief executive officer of the Pacific Maritime Association, a San Francisco-based group representing dock employers at U.S. West Coast ports. "Now, it looks like 2010 is going to be just as bleak."

At the Mozambique port of Maputo in Africa, coal is piling up. Exports from the port in Singapore, the world's busiest for containers, fell 1.5 per cent in November from a year earlier, its first decline in seven years. And at the port of Rotterdam, Europe's largest, shipments are likely to remain stagnant this year compared with 2007, said Jan Westerhoud, chief executive officer of Europe Container Terminals BV.

"The problem is that people can't get financing, no matter what their credit situation," said Ed Rice, president of the Coalition for Employment through Exports, which represents companies such as Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., United Parcel Service Inc. and BNP Paribas SA. "Banks are cancelling credit lines even for creditworthy customers."

The Baltic Dry Index, a measure of shipping costs for commodities, is down 93 per cent from a record in May, a sign that traders expect export volumes to stay depressed.

Slowing trade is both a cause and an effect of the first simultaneous contraction in the world's largest economies since the Second World War. Throughout this decade, trade grew by an average 12 per cent a year, reaching $13.6 trillion in 2007 and propelling growth in nations including Germany, China and Chile. Now the evaporation of financing and collapse in demand threaten an activity that accounts for a quarter of the $54-trillion global economy.

"We are having this dramatic reversal," said Michael Finger, a trade economist in Geneva since the early 1970s. "I'm a long time in this business, but this is unique."

Governments and international lenders are stepping in to fill the gap. China and the U.S. pledged $20 billion to aid their exporters. The World Bank tripled funding, to $3 billion, for banks that help emerging-market companies to sell abroad. South Korea pledged $16 billion for its exporters after banks there couldn't secure international credit lines for them.

In Germany, the world's top exporter, trade abroad slipped 0.5 per cent in October, the fourth drop in six months. The same month U.S. shipments fell 2.2 per cent to the lowest level in seven months. In China, the November decline of 2.2 per cent was the first decline in seven years, while in Japan, exports decreased a record 26.7 per cent that month.

Exporters worldwide are short $25 billion in trade financing that either isn't available or costs too much, according to Pascal Lamy, the head of the World Trade Organization.

Trade credit insurance, which protects sellers against losses and typically covers as much as 40 per cent of trade in Europe and five per cent in the U.S., is also harder to get.

Atradius NV, an Amsterdam-based insurer that covers about a third of global trade receivables, is raising prices by as much as 50 per cent and reducing coverage on thousands of companies. That includes 12,000 in the U.K. and all the suppliers to the biggest U.S. automakers -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.

One 57-hectare tract at Long Beach is filled with more than 25,000 new Toyotas that dealers can't sell.

Toyota, the world's second-largest automaker, recently forecast its first operating loss in 71 years on weak demand.

Nearby, scrap metal meant for export to Asia piled up behind a fence. From the observation deck, Lytle pointed to piles of empty containers stacked four high and numbering in the thousands.

Some of the dockside cranes "haven't turned a wheel in months," he said.