Trade Barriers: A waste of time and bad for the economy
The Times Union has an article today about a ball-bearing company in the area that will benefit from a ruling imposing duties on imported ball bearings.
Quoting the article, this was an "important ruling protecting the domestic ball bearing industry from unfair overseas competition."
When is competition fair and when is it unfair? Doesn't the loser always say it's unfair? The article says the duties will be maintained on "France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom." That's a big chunk of the world economy. It doesn't mention China, but I bet they're screwed too.
The TU article does mention that the ruling may hurt ball bearing producers overseas (obvious), but neglects to mention who else is hurt. I'll answer that: US manufacturers of products containing ball bearings, and the consumers who purchase those products.
Economics is quite clear on this. Trade barriers do more harm to consumers than any benefit they may create for the protected producers, and on top of that they harm the producers in other countries. They also encourage other countries to impose and/or maintain their trade barriers, sticking it to the consumers in those countries and exporters here. It's a vicious cycle, and the best way to get out of it is to stop playing the game.
I have a simple position on this issue. Free trade is good. We should eliminate all US trade barriers unilaterally. Once we've done that, I'd turn to countries with high barriers and challenge them to eliminate their barriers. If they don't comply, then I'd target them.
The other interesting thing about the article is the bipartisan nature of the current policy. Sweeney, McNulty and Hillary all supported the decision. Not sure why their opinions should matter on the question of whether the competition is unfair. That should be a economics and statistics analysis, and that may not be a strength for those political insiders. What it really means is the term unfair is defined by politics, not by reality.
Bipartisan. You hear about partisanship. Then you hear about bipartisan. I used to like the term non-partisan, but now I'm thinking of a new kick: anti-partisan. What we really need to do is destroy the political parties. That was the position of George Washington, but why would anyone listen to the father of our country.
Now I have to figure out how I can be a Republican while simultaneously being anti-partisan. If you see smoke coming out of my ears, you'll know the gears are grinding.
Quoting the article, this was an "important ruling protecting the domestic ball bearing industry from unfair overseas competition."
When is competition fair and when is it unfair? Doesn't the loser always say it's unfair? The article says the duties will be maintained on "France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom." That's a big chunk of the world economy. It doesn't mention China, but I bet they're screwed too.
The TU article does mention that the ruling may hurt ball bearing producers overseas (obvious), but neglects to mention who else is hurt. I'll answer that: US manufacturers of products containing ball bearings, and the consumers who purchase those products.
Economics is quite clear on this. Trade barriers do more harm to consumers than any benefit they may create for the protected producers, and on top of that they harm the producers in other countries. They also encourage other countries to impose and/or maintain their trade barriers, sticking it to the consumers in those countries and exporters here. It's a vicious cycle, and the best way to get out of it is to stop playing the game.
I have a simple position on this issue. Free trade is good. We should eliminate all US trade barriers unilaterally. Once we've done that, I'd turn to countries with high barriers and challenge them to eliminate their barriers. If they don't comply, then I'd target them.
The other interesting thing about the article is the bipartisan nature of the current policy. Sweeney, McNulty and Hillary all supported the decision. Not sure why their opinions should matter on the question of whether the competition is unfair. That should be a economics and statistics analysis, and that may not be a strength for those political insiders. What it really means is the term unfair is defined by politics, not by reality.
Bipartisan. You hear about partisanship. Then you hear about bipartisan. I used to like the term non-partisan, but now I'm thinking of a new kick: anti-partisan. What we really need to do is destroy the political parties. That was the position of George Washington, but why would anyone listen to the father of our country.
Now I have to figure out how I can be a Republican while simultaneously being anti-partisan. If you see smoke coming out of my ears, you'll know the gears are grinding.
posted by Albany Lawyer at 10:43 PM
1 Comments:
I surprised Chuck “Smoot-Haley” Schumer didn’t jump on that bandwagon.
It seems Pacamor follows an old American tradition, kissing the politician’s behinds for protection from evil foreign capitalist competition.
Don’t they know the real reason that they can’t compete is that the government is wasting their money?! (It's taxes and regulations stupid!) Of course it’s easier to kiss butt than to kick butt, isn’t it?
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
-Thomas Jefferson to Francis
Hopkinson, 1789.
Post a Comment
<< Home