Jobs Versus Net Jobs

[Chris]

Sowell's message here is government cannot create jobs and general harms the economy trying. Here's just one of his examples.

Jobs Versus Net Jobs (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/10/jobs-versus-net-jobs)
There are jobs and there are net jobs. This is true not only today but has been true in years past.

Back during the 1980s, when there were huge losses of jobs in the steel industry, the government restricted the importation of foreign steel. It has been estimated that this saved 5,000 jobs in the American steel industry.

But of course restriction of competition from lower-priced imported steel made steel more expensive to American producers of products containing steel. Therefore the price of these products rose, making them less in demand at these higher prices, causing losses of sales at home and in the world market.

The bottom line is that, while 5,000 jobs were saved in the American steel industry, 26,000 jobs were lost in American industries that produced products made of steel. On net balance, the country lost jobs by restricting the importation of steel.

Bottom line, the government gets its money from the private economy which loses what the government gains.

This is basic Bastiat, the Parable f the Broken Window, in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).

[Carygrant]

Sowell's message here is government cannot create jobs and general harms the economy trying. Here's just one of his examples.

Jobs Versus Net Jobs (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/10/jobs-versus-net-jobs)

Bottom line, the government gets its money from the private economy which loses what the government gains.

This is basic Bastiat, the Parable f the Broken Window, in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).


Despite having read Bastiat's words on the subject ( a longer support article would have been preferable !! ) I believe Government can create net new jobs by bringing forward capital projects and infrastructure changing events .
If not , why ?

[Trinnity]

Despite having read Bastiat's words on the subject ( a longer support article would have been preferable !! ) I believe Government can create net new jobs by bringing forward capital projects and infrastructure changing events .
If not , why ?On the state level, of course. The fed, not so much.

[Peter1469]

In Sowell's example, the companies that failed because they lost their subsidized foreign steel must have been unsustainable- at least at free market prices.

[Chris]

Despite having read Bastiat's words on the subject ( a longer support article would have been preferable !! ) I believe Government can create net new jobs by bringing forward capital projects and infrastructure changing events .
If not , why ?

For one for the reasons Sowell and Bastiat give, the money to fund those projects must be taken from the private sector. It would be a wash, all for naught, except the government has no means whatsoever to pick winners and losers while the private sector does so naturally via pricing signals.

[Peter1469]

For one for the reasons Sowell and Bastiat give, the money to fund those projects must be taken from the private sector. It would be a wash, all for naught, except the government has no means whatsoever to pick winners and losers while the private sector does so naturally via pricing signals.


Don't forget about the other government..... :shocked:

[Chris]

Don't forget about the other government..... :shocked:

???

Only other entity I can think of providing governance is the society that emerges from individual interaction and handed down by tradition.

[Peter1469]

???

Only other entity I can think of providing governance is the society that emerges from individual interaction and handed down by tradition.

When other governments dump their products onto our economy, we should not ignore those actions. Especially with countries that have no / little private companies.

[Chris]

When other governments dump their products onto our economy, we should not ignore those actions. Especially with countries that have no / little private companies.

That's what Sowell took as example and showed how protectionist policies do more harm than good not only in raising consumer costs but job loss.

[Peter1469]

That's what Sowell took as example and showed how protectionist policies do more harm than good not only in raising consumer costs but job loss.

If all things are equal I agree. If we are talking about a strategic industry, then we might have to pay more to protect that industry. After all we still have a government, a nation, and a state.

[Chris]

If all things are equal I agree. If we are talking about a strategic industry, then we might have to pay more to protect that industry. After all we still have a government, a nation, and a state.

They are never equal, that matters not at all, protectionist policies only do harm. Find away that does everyone good.

[Peter1469]

They are never equal, that matters not at all, protectionist policies only do harm. Find away that does everyone good.

OK. Eliminate all government influence. Then you get free trade.

Now back to real-ville. When we trade with Chinese government own corporations..., well....

[Chris]

OK. Eliminate all government influence. Then you get free trade.

Now back to real-ville. When we trade with Chinese government own corporations..., well....

Actually that's a good idea, combating managed trade with free trade. Given that free trade generates wealth and managed trade only harms those who engage in it--why else is China in a slump now--eventually less free trade nations would see the advantages of liberal policies and disadvantages illiberal one, and adapt and adopt.

How is combating managed trade with managed trade real-ville?

[Peter1469]

Actually that's a good idea, combating managed trade with free trade. Given that free trade generates wealth and managed trade only harms those who engage in it--why else is China in a slump now--eventually less free trade nations would see the advantages of liberal policies and disadvantages illiberal one, and adapt and adopt.

How is combating managed trade with managed trade real-ville?

Because it evens the playing field and creates free trade.

[Chris]

Because it evens the playing field and creates free trade.

Just as two wrongs do not a right make, managed trade plus managed care does not free trade make. Whil;e I understand your nationalistic desire for retaliation for the benefit of a few, it will likely only result in trade war harmful to all.


There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods. To judge whether such retaliations are likely to produce such an effect, does not, perhaps, belong so much to the science of a legislator, whose deliberations ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same, as to the skill of that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs. When there is no probability that any such repeal can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people, to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home–market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class.
~Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

[Peter1469]

Just as two wrongs do not a right make, managed trade plus managed care does not free trade make. Whil;e I understand your nationalistic desire for retaliation for the benefit of a few, it will likely only result in trade war harmful to all.


~Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Depending upon the industry at risk, it may be in the nation's national security interest to act. For instance, I don't think that the cheap clothing industry in the US merited protection from cheaper Chinese clothing.

[Chris]

Depending upon the industry at risk, it may be in the nation's national security interest to act. For instance, I don't think that the cheap clothing industry in the US merited protection from cheaper Chinese clothing.


Depending upon the industry at risk, it may be in the nation's national security interest to act.

Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with whether protectionist trade policies are good. You want to advocate a strong military-industrial complex, then advocate raising taxed for it.

We've been thru this many times and each time you run out of arguments for your tariff policies you change the topic to other things.

[Peter1469]

Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with whether protectionist trade policies are good. You want to advocate a strong military-industrial complex, then advocate raising taxed for it.

We've been thru this many times and each time you run out of arguments for your tariff policies you change the topic to other things.

Incorrect.

If a particular industry is vital to national security interests (not your straw-man military industrial complex) then tariffs may be needed to keep other nations from killing it off.

[Chris]

Incorrect.

If a particular industry is vital to national security interests (not your straw-man military industrial complex) then tariffs may be needed to keep other nations from killing it off.

Irrelevant. That's a wholly different topic. Just raise taxes, heck, that's really what you're advocating since a tariff is just a tax.