Five Myths of Imports

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,739
Reaction score
7,939
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
The WSJ again shows why it's America's greatest newspaper, with this insightful column. Both liberals and self-styled "conservatives" who dont know much about economics will be outraged, asking for proof and impugning the columnist, the newspaper, and yours truly.

Laura Baughman: Five Myths About Imports - WSJ.com

• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China. Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

• Imports cost jobs. Some workers are put out of work when their employers cannot compete with lower-cost imports. But here is the other side: Many workers owe their jobs to imports. Truckers and numerous other transportation workers move imports around the country. Warehouse workers store imported inventories for wholesalers and retailers.

Millions of other jobs are tied to imports, though in less obvious ways. Import-related jobs support workers at the local lunch spot or the shopping mall where they buy clothes. Workers with manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers place orders with U.S. and foreign suppliers for products ranging from paper boxes to computers and cash registers that help companies sell their products. The greater economic efficiencies that result from lower-cost imports boost U.S. productivity. This stimulates job-sustaining activity across the economy.

Data compiled by the Trade Partnership, the consultancy I founded in 1991, show that even after subtracting job losses, more than 16 million Americans owe their jobs to imports.

• Imports hurt U.S. manufacturing. It would be more accurate to say that imports fuel American manufacturing. More than 60% of U.S. imports are raw materials, components and machinery that are used to make goods or grow crops, according to U.S. Census Bureau data analyzed by the Trade Partnership. American manufacturers use these imported inputs when locally produced substitutes are either not available or too expensive. Imported inputs thus keep American manufacturing competitive, both locally and globally.

Similarly, U.S. manufacturers are part of global supply chains. The manufacturers export raw materials, parts, components and machinery that are used to make goods abroad that are then imported back into this country. In other words, imports create markets for U.S. exports.

• Floods of imports hurt the U.S. economy. News reports about the latest trade data mostly focus on the "red ink" of the U.S. trade deficit and the alleged drag that this deficit exerts on economic growth. But when imports grow, so does the economy. When the economy slows, so does the growth in imports. This only makes sense: When the economy is growing, consumers buy more, including imported products. When the economy is bad and employment prospects shaky, we cut back, putting off big purchases, both imported and U.S.-made.

• The U.S. economy is wide open to imports. On average, U.S. tariffs are a relatively low 1.4%, while American workers and companies face trade barriers in countless countries. Many claim unfairness and suggest issuing retaliatory tariffs to even things out.

But the U.S. economy isn't entirely welcoming to imports. More than 1,000 product categories, including footwear and apparel, face U.S. duties of 10% or higher. The U.S. also imposes quotas on dairy products, sugar, sugar-containing products, ethanol, cotton, beef, canned tuna and tobacco. Imports above the quota are subject to prohibitively high tariffs. These trade barriers raise the price of many goods that hit middle- and low-income people hard.
More at the source.
 
You're trying to start a discussion, that requires an IQ to participate in, with dimocrap scum?

Bumper Sticker Slogans are all they got.

And lies.

But I wish you luck.

Did you see where dimocraps are trying to push legislation that will prevent American Companies from absolutely FLEEING the Country because of our ridiculous Tax Codes?

A good read. Sort of.

Legislation Aims to Keep Firms From Leaving U.S. for Tax Savings - Washington Wire - WSJ

dimocraps are just stupid human beings. They really are stupid.

Here's a thought, dimocrap scum.....

If Companies are leaving at a record rate....? WHY are they leaving?

Taxes? Great, then why not try to fix the Tax Code?

Because dimocraps are stupid *****, that's why
 
Their explanation for everyhting is, Companies are greedy.
Like unions aren't greedy.
Or anyone else for that matter.
 
• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China.

Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

2 points:

1. Since the writer admits that the claim is true, what's the myth?

2. Why would importing from a high wage company be a good thing? Isn't that worse? Doesn't that prove that we could be paying high wages to Americans to make the same products,

and therefore doesn't that shoot down the argument that 'overpaid' American workers are a major cause of the trade deficit?
 
• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China.

Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

2 points:

1. Since the writer admits that the claim is true, what's the myth?

2. Why would importing from a high wage company be a good thing? Isn't that worse? Doesn't that prove that we could be paying high wages to Americans to make the same products,

and therefore doesn't that shoot down the argument that 'overpaid' American workers are a major cause of the trade deficit?

Because the claim is only marginally true, and ignores the fact that almost half of imports do NOT come from low wage countries.
Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.
Look up "comparative advantage" in your Econ 101 textbook. You have an Econ 101 textbook, right?
 
• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China.

Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

2 points:

1. Since the writer admits that the claim is true, what's the myth?

2. Why would importing from a high wage company be a good thing? Isn't that worse? Doesn't that prove that we could be paying high wages to Americans to make the same products,

and therefore doesn't that shoot down the argument that 'overpaid' American workers are a major cause of the trade deficit?

The Germans pay their Auto Workers DOUBLE what we pay ours.

Not only are the German Auto Companies much bigger than ours, they are far more profitable and suffered very little in the downturn of the recession while pieces of shit like GM went belly-up and the Lying ********** in Chief GAVE AWAY Chrysler to Fiat.

I only buy Fords. You couldn't give me a Generic Motors piece of shit. Chrysler products, you just shoot yourself after you buy one of them. Get the suffering over with.

I would ask you why and how the Germans can pay their workers twice what we pay our, produce better cars, be more profitable and have much better benefits, but you wouldn't have a clue.

Because you're a dimocrap. Which means you're stupid.

(Hint: It's three words. I won't tell you what the words are, but their initials are, UAW)

I could ask you the same about why our Public Schools are the worst in the civilized world and you'd be at the same loss.... It's called stupidity.

I could ask why we spend the most per student of any Country on Earth bu we produce the 35th ranked Students.

But you'd still be clueless.

You'll die clueless, too.

Born, lived and died clueless. What a life, huh?
 
• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China.

Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

2 points:

1. Since the writer admits that the claim is true, what's the myth?

2. Why would importing from a high wage company be a good thing? Isn't that worse? Doesn't that prove that we could be paying high wages to Americans to make the same products,

and therefore doesn't that shoot down the argument that 'overpaid' American workers are a major cause of the trade deficit?

Because the claim is only marginally true, and ignores the fact that almost half of imports do NOT come from low wage countries.
Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.
Look up "comparative advantage" in your Econ 101 textbook. You have an Econ 101 textbook, right?

dimocraps quibble like little bitches. They're not worth it. They're just simply stupid.
 
When you decide that you can make shit up about what your "political opposition" believes, faulting them for believing what is entirely ONLY YOUR LIES ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE is pretty sleazy.
 
Underneath all the hypocritical prattle about the Sacred Founders and their Constitutional Intent which the fringe right offers unceasingly we see the real masters of the new GOP, the Koch Boys and International Big Business with its "free trade" malarky which has wiped out a generation of manufacturing and crippled the middle class.

George Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was totally opposed to "free trade". The tariff he devised and which was passed in the first years of the new republic, had high duty on manufactured imports specifically to create manufacturing jobs for Americans. Southern slave owners didn't like it because they sold their cotton abroad, but the high protective tariff was the foundation of American policy until the arrival of reaganomics almost two centuries later. The policy of the Founding Fathers was pro-jobs and anti-free trade. Today's Republicans are too uneducated to know this and too dumb to understand it.

 
• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China.

Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

2 points:

1. Since the writer admits that the claim is true, what's the myth?

2. Why would importing from a high wage company be a good thing? Isn't that worse? Doesn't that prove that we could be paying high wages to Americans to make the same products,

and therefore doesn't that shoot down the argument that 'overpaid' American workers are a major cause of the trade deficit?

Because the claim is only marginally true, and ignores the fact that almost half of imports do NOT come from low wage countries.
Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.
Look up "comparative advantage" in your Econ 101 textbook. You have an Econ 101 textbook, right?

Then you tell us how televisions, for example, made in China, could ever be competitively made in the US again, at current US manufacturing wages.
 
The absurd premise of this thread, that somehow our trade deficit is a good thing, leads to the equally absurd converse,

that the nations that have trade surpluses with us are somehow suffering for it, and would be better off with trade deficits of their own.
 
Underneath all the hypocritical prattle about the Sacred Founders and their Constitutional Intent which the fringe right offers unceasingly we see the real masters of the new GOP, the Koch Boys and International Big Business with its "free trade" malarky which has wiped out a generation of manufacturing and crippled the middle class.

George Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was totally opposed to "free trade". The tariff he devised and which was passed in the first years of the new republic, had high duty on manufactured imports specifically to create manufacturing jobs for Americans. Southern slave owners didn't like it because they sold their cotton abroad, but the high protective tariff was the foundation of American policy until the arrival of reaganomics almost two centuries later. The policy of the Founding Fathers was pro-jobs and anti-free trade. Today's Republicans are too uneducated to know this and too dumb to understand it.


^^^^Didnt read the article
 
• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China.

Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

2 points:

1. Since the writer admits that the claim is true, what's the myth?

2. Why would importing from a high wage company be a good thing? Isn't that worse? Doesn't that prove that we could be paying high wages to Americans to make the same products,

and therefore doesn't that shoot down the argument that 'overpaid' American workers are a major cause of the trade deficit?

Because the claim is only marginally true, and ignores the fact that almost half of imports do NOT come from low wage countries.
Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.
Look up "comparative advantage" in your Econ 101 textbook. You have an Econ 101 textbook, right?

Then you tell us how televisions, for example, made in China, could ever be competitively made in the US again, at current US manufacturing wages.

Bsaically they can't. So what?
 
The absurd premise of this thread, that somehow our trade deficit is a good thing, leads to the equally absurd converse,

that the nations that have trade surpluses with us are somehow suffering for it, and would be better off with trade deficits of their own.

That's not really a premise. Try again.
 
Because the claim is only marginally true, and ignores the fact that almost half of imports do NOT come from low wage countries.
Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.
Look up "comparative advantage" in your Econ 101 textbook. You have an Econ 101 textbook, right?

Then you tell us how televisions, for example, made in China, could ever be competitively made in the US again, at current US manufacturing wages.

Bsaically they can't. So what?

So argue with the guy who said this:

Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.


Oh, wait, that was you. Argue with yourself.
 
The absurd premise of this thread, that somehow our trade deficit is a good thing, leads to the equally absurd converse,

that the nations that have trade surpluses with us are somehow suffering for it, and would be better off with trade deficits of their own.

That's not really a premise. Try again.

So you agree that trade deficits are bad, and that low wages in other countries exacerbate our trade deficit.

What WAS the point of your thread anyway?
 
15th post
Then you tell us how televisions, for example, made in China, could ever be competitively made in the US again, at current US manufacturing wages.

Bsaically they can't. So what?

So argue with the guy who said this:

Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.


Oh, wait, that was you. Argue with yourself.

If you think the two things are related you probably have retardation issues.
 
The absurd premise of this thread, that somehow our trade deficit is a good thing, leads to the equally absurd converse,

that the nations that have trade surpluses with us are somehow suffering for it, and would be better off with trade deficits of their own.

That's not really a premise. Try again.

So you agree that trade deficits are bad, and that low wages in other countries exacerbate our trade deficit.

What WAS the point of your thread anyway?
No, actually I do not agree trade deficits are bad nor that low wages in other countries exacerbate our trade deficits, nor that low wages in other countries cause us any problems at all.
You were saying?
 
• Imports come primarily from low-wage countries like China.

Yes, China is the largest supplier of imports to the U.S. But nearly half of non-oil imports to America come from other high-wage, developed countries. According to U.S. government data, nine of the top 20 of these import suppliers are high-wage trading partners like Canada, where the hourly manufacturing pay in 2012 averaged $36.59, even higher than the U.S.'s $35.34 average that year. Other countries on the list include Japan ($35.34), Germany ($45.79), the U.K. ($31.23), France ($39.81), Italy ($34.18), Ireland ($38.17) and Switzerland ($57.70).

2 points:

1. Since the writer admits that the claim is true, what's the myth?

2. Why would importing from a high wage company be a good thing? Isn't that worse? Doesn't that prove that we could be paying high wages to Americans to make the same products,

and therefore doesn't that shoot down the argument that 'overpaid' American workers are a major cause of the trade deficit?

Because the claim is only marginally true, and ignores the fact that almost half of imports do NOT come from low wage countries.
Because it shows that the meme "American workers would have to make what Chinese workers make to remain competitive" is simply untrue.
Look up "comparative advantage" in your Econ 101 textbook. You have an Econ 101 textbook, right?

Then you tell us how televisions, for example, made in China, could ever be competitively made in the US again, at current US manufacturing wages.

They can never be made in the USA again because the EPA has made it illegal to make them here.
 
The concept of "unit labor cost" is foreign to libs, who never took Econ 101.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom