The more I read, the more I think American economists hate America

dubeskin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-06-08 10:44 PM
Original message

The more I read, the more I think American economists hate America

Edited on Wed Aug-06-08 10:45 PM by dubeskin

Note to people, I put this in GD because I figured it didn't fully relate to the economy itself, which is why I didn't post there.

So let me just preface this by saying I'm going into my Senior year of high school and one of the AP classes I'll be taking is AP Microeconomics. Now, like any AP class, we're required to do some summer work as an intro to the class. In this case it was Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan. Now it may have helped me to research this man's credentials before I embarked on my work, because by page 30 I had already discredited this man (anyone who thinks that all energy is nonrenewable holds no valid opinions in my mind. Last time I checked, wind was never going to "disappear").

But now that I'm almost done (thank God) and I'm in the chapter on globalization, he discusses how "Tom Friedman has suggested that the antiglobalization coalition ought to be known as 'The Coalition to Keep the World's Poor People Poor.'" And honestly, the more I read and re-read to make sure that my eyes weren't deceiving me, it appears that American economists agree it's a good thing that jobs are leaving the country...or at least have extremely bad short-term memory.

Wheelan originally says in Chapter 11 that "we trade with other because it frees up time and resources to do things that we are better at." Now, I think that's an accurate blanket statement to conclude that specialization has allowed for us as a culture to develop and grow and prosper. We would still be in the Dark Ages if we hadn't. However, he later goes on to contradict himself and discuss trade barriers.

Trade barriers are a tax - albeit a hidden tax. Suppose the U.S. government tacked a 30-cent tax on every gallon of orange juice sold in America. The conservative antigovernment forces would be up in arms. So would liberals, who generally take issue with takes on food and clothing, since such taxes are regressive, meaning that they are most costly (as a percentage of income) for the disadvantaged. Well, the government does add 30 cents to the cost of every gallon of orange juice, though now in a way that is nearly as transparent as a tax. The American government slaps tariffs on Brazilian oranges and orange juice that can be as high as 63 percent. Parts of Brazil are nearly ideal for growing citrus, which is exactly what has American growers concerned. So the government protects them. Economists reckon that the tariffs on Brazilian oranges and juice limit the supply of imports and therefore add about 30 cents to the price of a gallon of orange juice. Most consumers have no idea that the government is taking money out of their pockets and sending it to orange growers in Florida. That does not show up on the receipt.

Now, when you finally sort through the opinion and find the "facts," it's pretty biased still. What Wheelan is saying, as I interpret it, is that if we allowed Brazil to import their citrus without a tax on it, the whole industry would be better? He later goes on to suggest that by doing so would make the industry more competitive and so growers lower prices. Now let me get this straight. By taking away a tax which helps the government, you force American growers to lower prices, thus them making less money, thus being worse off financially, thus not being able to grow as much, thus forcing some farmers out of the business. This then increases unemployment, burdening the government even more, and now that "specialization" is gone from the system, their "human capital" (or the skills, work experience, traits, etc.) is irrelevant because they can't work. Now, didn't he JUST say that specialization is a GOOD thing? Not only does he contradict his own point, but that fact that so many other economists agree with him on this idea of lowering trade barriers it seems that they want to secretly make America a country in which their only products are foreign.

This is just an example of the book. Now it seems to me, although this could be the uneducated high schooler in me, that when we open our markets up significantly, so much so that every industry is challenged by cheaper goods that are less regulated, we encourage people to leave the American workforce and turn to something else, most notably something that asks "Would you like fries with that?" every three minutes. That seems to defeat the point of specialization. From what it seems to me, American economists want to see America is huge international market, so that you can walk down the street, buy Arabian kabobs, Indian dresses, German beer, Japanese cars, Italian wines, and Chinese shoes...oh wait. Nevermind, you can't, because your jobs have essentially been taken over by other countries, and your government stood by, watched, and encouraged it.

By the way, I want you to point out the flaws in my argument. It can only help us both.