Let America’s Gas Industry Boom - NYPOST.com:
EXCERPTS:
"In recent years, the nation has seen astonishing technological innovation in the natural-gas sector. Companies have discovered vast, gas-rich shale deposits under US soil. And they’ve developed new, high-tech means of extraction. The estimated reserves of recoverable domestic gas are now over 2.2 trillion cubic feet.
"The expansion in supply has already brought a dramatic drop in natural-gas prices, now at a 10-year low. Other countries, mostly in Asia, are eager to buy some of America’s low-cost gas. So 17 US energy companies have applied to export gas. And two proposals for new gas-export terminals — at Coos Bay and the Port of Astoria, both in Oregon — now await federal approval.
***
"The argument against natural-gas exports is also economically backward.A nation prospers through international trade precisely by exporting those goods and services that it can produce at relatively low cost.
"Indeed, the Energy Department report found that gas exports benefit the economy despite higher domestic prices — in part because they also mean a corresponding fall in the prices that Americans pay for other goods and services that we import. That is, lucrative exports allow our nation to import more of those goods and services that can be produced at home only at relatively high costs.
Showing posts with label International Trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Trade. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Obama: Let's repeat auto industry success - POLITICO.com
Obama: Let's repeat auto industry success - POLITICO.com
PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back. “I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said.
“Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry. “I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.
QUESTIONS:
1. If the government tries to provide assistance to every industry, will there be any unintended consequences?
2. If every industry is supported by the government, who's going to bear the cost of providing this assistance?
3. President Obama says he doesn't want manufacturing jobs to "take root" in China. If you agree, which jobs do you think should take root in China? If no jobs take root in China, and China doesn't produce anything, would that make people in the U.S. better off or worse off? (Before you answer, check your television to see where it was produced.)
PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back. “I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said.
“Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry. “I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.
QUESTIONS:
1. If the government tries to provide assistance to every industry, will there be any unintended consequences?
2. If every industry is supported by the government, who's going to bear the cost of providing this assistance?
3. President Obama says he doesn't want manufacturing jobs to "take root" in China. If you agree, which jobs do you think should take root in China? If no jobs take root in China, and China doesn't produce anything, would that make people in the U.S. better off or worse off? (Before you answer, check your television to see where it was produced.)
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Bernie Sanders' War on Chinese Bobbleheads! - YouTube
Bernie Sanders' War on Chinese Bobbleheads! - YouTube
"If a museum owned by the people of America cannot even have products manufactured in the United States by American workers, we've got some very, very serious problems." - Congressman Bernie Sanders
Do you agree with Sanders? Watch the video and then see what you think.
"If a museum owned by the people of America cannot even have products manufactured in the United States by American workers, we've got some very, very serious problems." - Congressman Bernie Sanders
Do you agree with Sanders? Watch the video and then see what you think.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Should the government "protect" American exporters?
When we think of "protecting" someone from something in the abstract, we're likely to visualize an innocent party being threatened with some harm. Our natural inclination is to think such protection is probably a good thing, but this creates a problem. It means that any policy which is framed as providing "protection" for someone will seem like a good thing, if we don't think carefully about exactly what that policy does. The label "protection" serves to make the policy sound laudable and to make careful thought about the actual nature of the policy seem unnecessary. Whenever a policy is marketed as providing "protection" for someone, this is a signal that we should think carefully about what the policy will actually do - we should look for an alternative way of framing it which makes clear exactly what the policy will do.
George Mason University Don Boudreaux is a master of this. Consider his recent comment on a senator's statement about "protecting" American exporters.
EXCERPTS from Boudreaux's letter:
Dear Sen. Brown:
In today’s Washington Post you declare that “Demanding that trade agreements work for American exporters isn’t protectionism; it’s common sense.”
In other words, whenever other governments dole out favors to foreign corporations at the expense of foreign consumers, you want Uncle Sam to dole out favors to American corporations at the expense of American consumers.
This isn’t common sense, sir. It’s garbage-heap economics that serves as a convenient excuse for politicians to pick the pockets of hundreds of millions of Americans for the benefit of politically influential businesses.
George Mason University Don Boudreaux is a master of this. Consider his recent comment on a senator's statement about "protecting" American exporters.
EXCERPTS from Boudreaux's letter:
Dear Sen. Brown:
In today’s Washington Post you declare that “Demanding that trade agreements work for American exporters isn’t protectionism; it’s common sense.”
In other words, whenever other governments dole out favors to foreign corporations at the expense of foreign consumers, you want Uncle Sam to dole out favors to American corporations at the expense of American consumers.
This isn’t common sense, sir. It’s garbage-heap economics that serves as a convenient excuse for politicians to pick the pockets of hundreds of millions of Americans for the benefit of politically influential businesses.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
China Bashing is for Losers - Shikha Dalmia - Uncommon Sense - Forbes
EXCERPTS:
"The idea that selling abroad creates jobs at home and buying abroad destroys jobs at home is an old mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith handily refuted more than 200 years ago. Back then it at least had intuitive plausibility, but today it is obviously false given that the manufacturing chain spans the whole globe. Indeed, under the intricate global division of labor that currently exists, the whole idea of “Made in China” is largely a bureaucratic fiction.
Think about the IPod, for instance. It is designed in America and its 451 parts are made in dozens of different countries. But just because it is finally assembled in China, it officially counts as a Chinese import and therefore a contributor to America’s trade deficit — never mind that the Chinese add only $4 to the IPod’s $150 final value. Imposing duties on IPods to slash the deficit, then, won’t just cost Chinese jobs in Beijing assembly plants, but American jobs in Cupertino (Apple’s headquarters) computer labs.
"The idea that selling abroad creates jobs at home and buying abroad destroys jobs at home is an old mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith handily refuted more than 200 years ago. Back then it at least had intuitive plausibility, but today it is obviously false given that the manufacturing chain spans the whole globe. Indeed, under the intricate global division of labor that currently exists, the whole idea of “Made in China” is largely a bureaucratic fiction.
Think about the IPod, for instance. It is designed in America and its 451 parts are made in dozens of different countries. But just because it is finally assembled in China, it officially counts as a Chinese import and therefore a contributor to America’s trade deficit — never mind that the Chinese add only $4 to the IPod’s $150 final value. Imposing duties on IPods to slash the deficit, then, won’t just cost Chinese jobs in Beijing assembly plants, but American jobs in Cupertino (Apple’s headquarters) computer labs.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Who Is We? The benefits of specialization and exchange
EXCERPTS from Donald Boudreaux's letter to Tony Kornheiser, host of the Tony Kornheiser Show on ESPN:
"Your show is great. And while I realize that your chief goal is to be humorous, your monologue yesterday – lamenting that “we Americans don’t make things any more” and filled with genuine worry about America being largely a service economy – demands a response.
***
You make your living by writing and talking about sports. The Kornheiser family truly doesn’t “make things.” You earn an income by specializing in what you do best, and you use that income to purchase from persons outside of your household all the many “things” that you consume. As a result, you’re quite prosperous.
What’s true for the plural pronoun “we” used to describe the Kornheiser household is no less true for the plural pronoun “we” used to describe America. We Americans do indeed buy lots of things from non-Americans – a fact that is no more worrying than is the fact that, as you might say, “we Kornheisers don’t make things any more and, instead, buy all of our things from non-Kornheisers.”
"Your show is great. And while I realize that your chief goal is to be humorous, your monologue yesterday – lamenting that “we Americans don’t make things any more” and filled with genuine worry about America being largely a service economy – demands a response.
***
You make your living by writing and talking about sports. The Kornheiser family truly doesn’t “make things.” You earn an income by specializing in what you do best, and you use that income to purchase from persons outside of your household all the many “things” that you consume. As a result, you’re quite prosperous.
What’s true for the plural pronoun “we” used to describe the Kornheiser household is no less true for the plural pronoun “we” used to describe America. We Americans do indeed buy lots of things from non-Americans – a fact that is no more worrying than is the fact that, as you might say, “we Kornheisers don’t make things any more and, instead, buy all of our things from non-Kornheisers.”
Monday, May 31, 2010
The minimum wage law and its effect on poor people - who do you think is right?
EXCERPT from a statement by Congressman Eni Faleomavaega (representative from the territory of American Samoa in the United States Congress since 1989) in a response to an article by economist Walter Williams:
"...shame on Walter Williams for asking ‘Which is preferable for the Samoan worker – being employed at $3.25 an hour or being unemployed at $5.25?'
“What is preferable is to do right by poor people. Anything less, including ‘breathtakingly stupid’ comments which imply that poor people should be treated like second class citizens have no place in public debate.”
COMMENT:
I encourage you to read the entire statement posted by Congressman Faleomavaega, then read the article by Walter Williams that provoked the congressman's outrage.
Questions:
Is Williams suggesting that poor people should be treated like second-class citizens?
Why is Williams opposed to raising the minimum wage? Is it because he wants to help businesses and keep poor people poor, or is it because he believes that the consequences of raising the minimum wage will harm the poor people the congressman for whom he is professing concern?
For each of these writers, ask yourself, "is he giving me a thoughtful analysis of the consequences which can be expected to result from a higher minimum wage, or is he simply expressing a desire that poor people be better off without considering whether a higher minimum wage will actually make those people better off or worse off?
"...shame on Walter Williams for asking ‘Which is preferable for the Samoan worker – being employed at $3.25 an hour or being unemployed at $5.25?'
“What is preferable is to do right by poor people. Anything less, including ‘breathtakingly stupid’ comments which imply that poor people should be treated like second class citizens have no place in public debate.”
COMMENT:
I encourage you to read the entire statement posted by Congressman Faleomavaega, then read the article by Walter Williams that provoked the congressman's outrage.
Questions:
Is Williams suggesting that poor people should be treated like second-class citizens?
Why is Williams opposed to raising the minimum wage? Is it because he wants to help businesses and keep poor people poor, or is it because he believes that the consequences of raising the minimum wage will harm the poor people the congressman for whom he is professing concern?
For each of these writers, ask yourself, "is he giving me a thoughtful analysis of the consequences which can be expected to result from a higher minimum wage, or is he simply expressing a desire that poor people be better off without considering whether a higher minimum wage will actually make those people better off or worse off?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Economists Without Borders
Eleven states import much of the coal that they use from other states. Is this a problem for which a solution should be sought? This short letter makes an important point that applies to many issues, such as the foreign trade deficit the U.S. has with China and many other countries.
EXCERPT:
"It’s wholly unscientific to treat political borders as defining any relevant or meaningful boundaries for economic transactions.
EXCERPT:
"It’s wholly unscientific to treat political borders as defining any relevant or meaningful boundaries for economic transactions.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Flowering of Civilization - Cafehayek
How does a volcanic eruption in Iceland affect workers in Kenya, and at the same time demonstrate the benefits of global trade?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Balance-of-Payments Deficit: Not to Worry | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
EXCERPT:
"Quick. What’s the trade deficit between California and the rest of the world? Don’t try Googling it because you won’t find an answer. No government agency—or private entity—computes the dollar value of goods that people in the rest of the world sell to or buy from Californians. Why not? Because it doesn’t matter.
Yet governments do that computation for countries. Do trade deficits between countries matter? They do, but a lot less than most people think. A high trade deficit is not a definite sign of an economy’s weakness, and a low trade deficit or high trade surplus is not a definite sign of an economy’s strength....
"Quick. What’s the trade deficit between California and the rest of the world? Don’t try Googling it because you won’t find an answer. No government agency—or private entity—computes the dollar value of goods that people in the rest of the world sell to or buy from Californians. Why not? Because it doesn’t matter.
Yet governments do that computation for countries. Do trade deficits between countries matter? They do, but a lot less than most people think. A high trade deficit is not a definite sign of an economy’s weakness, and a low trade deficit or high trade surplus is not a definite sign of an economy’s strength....
On Trade and Currency Manipulation | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
EXCERPT:
"Americans are importing more from China. Protectionists abhor this fact.
Explaining that American imports from China reflect nothing more sinister than the voluntary choices of American consumers does not satisfy simple-minded protectionists. It is sufficient that these imports take business away from some American producers. In the minds of simple-minded protectionists, international trade is harmful whenever it causes domestic business to lose market share to foreign rivals.
Not all protectionists, though, are this simple-minded. Some of them understand that resources have alternative uses and that prosperity is enhanced when each specific resource is used to produce that good or service that consumers value more highly than any other good or service that that resource can be used to produce.
The “sophisticated” protectionist (if we may call him that) also understands the argument based on comparative advantage—namely, free trade encourages resources to be used in their most efficient ways.
But the sophisticated protectionist is still a protectionist. He cannot shake off his uneasy sense that imports somehow harm his country’s prosperity. So he eagerly latches onto almost any excuse to proclaim that he of course staunchly supports free trade “but not when foreigners do” this, that, or the other thing that allegedly nullifies the case for free trade.....
"Americans are importing more from China. Protectionists abhor this fact.
Explaining that American imports from China reflect nothing more sinister than the voluntary choices of American consumers does not satisfy simple-minded protectionists. It is sufficient that these imports take business away from some American producers. In the minds of simple-minded protectionists, international trade is harmful whenever it causes domestic business to lose market share to foreign rivals.
Not all protectionists, though, are this simple-minded. Some of them understand that resources have alternative uses and that prosperity is enhanced when each specific resource is used to produce that good or service that consumers value more highly than any other good or service that that resource can be used to produce.
The “sophisticated” protectionist (if we may call him that) also understands the argument based on comparative advantage—namely, free trade encourages resources to be used in their most efficient ways.
But the sophisticated protectionist is still a protectionist. He cannot shake off his uneasy sense that imports somehow harm his country’s prosperity. So he eagerly latches onto almost any excuse to proclaim that he of course staunchly supports free trade “but not when foreigners do” this, that, or the other thing that allegedly nullifies the case for free trade.....
Monday, January 11, 2010
The old delusion of protectionism - The Boston Globe
EXCERPT:
"why stop there? In addition to boycotting goods and services made in other countries, let’s avoid spending money on products from other states. Those of us who live in Massachusetts should refuse to buy dryer sheets from California, Ohio lightbulbs, and hoses made in California. My Boston cabbie should be curling his lip at cars made not just by companies headquartered in Japan or Germany, but by those based in Michigan, too.
Crazy? Of course. Refusing to trade across state lines wouldn’t make us economically stronger. It would make us weaker, condemning us to higher prices, less variety, reduced purchasing power, and inferior quality. Granted, such protectionism might work to the advantage of a few local producers. But it would do so only by depriving everyone else of economic opportunity and improved quality of life. To turn state borders into trade barriers would be irrational and self-defeating.
What protectionists never seem to grasp is that it is no less irrational and self-defeating to treat the borders of countries as barriers to trade. Free trade isn’t a battle that countries (or states) win or lose. It is a human right - the liberty to engage in voluntary transactions that leave both participants better off. If John wants to sell something that Mary wants to buy, it should make no difference to the lawfulness of their exchange whether they are residents of different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations."
"why stop there? In addition to boycotting goods and services made in other countries, let’s avoid spending money on products from other states. Those of us who live in Massachusetts should refuse to buy dryer sheets from California, Ohio lightbulbs, and hoses made in California. My Boston cabbie should be curling his lip at cars made not just by companies headquartered in Japan or Germany, but by those based in Michigan, too.
Crazy? Of course. Refusing to trade across state lines wouldn’t make us economically stronger. It would make us weaker, condemning us to higher prices, less variety, reduced purchasing power, and inferior quality. Granted, such protectionism might work to the advantage of a few local producers. But it would do so only by depriving everyone else of economic opportunity and improved quality of life. To turn state borders into trade barriers would be irrational and self-defeating.
What protectionists never seem to grasp is that it is no less irrational and self-defeating to treat the borders of countries as barriers to trade. Free trade isn’t a battle that countries (or states) win or lose. It is a human right - the liberty to engage in voluntary transactions that leave both participants better off. If John wants to sell something that Mary wants to buy, it should make no difference to the lawfulness of their exchange whether they are residents of different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations."
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)